The evolution of computers

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, the importance of standards, my good man.

The designers are analogous to genes. Whilst the number of possible designs a designer can comprehend is much larger than the number of different proteins a gene can synthesize (hence it takes a lower number of designers to design a chipset than it takes genes to make a body), it remains finite. Not all combinations work, but these designers are specialists and, dependant on what the boss says, they know which circuits to put into a given chip. Much in the same way that genes act in cascades, with one gene coding for a protein which tells other genes what to do! As you say, some combinations work better than others, and that largely is determined by the people on your design team.

Would you like me to start a thread on the evolution of design teams?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The designers are analogous to genes. Whilst the number of possible designs a designer can comprehend is much larger than the number of different proteins a gene can synthesize (hence it takes a lower number of designers to design a chipset than it takes genes to make a body), it remains finite. Not all combinations work, but these designers are speci ...[text shortened]... le on your design team.

Would you like me to start a thread on the evolution of design teams?

Designers have a plan, a purpose, and are working together on a
design, not so with genes. I'd like for you to tell me the purpose
of taking something that we know requires a great deal of planning,
and show me how this has anything to do with evolution where the
beliefs are that evolution had no plan and came to the structures
of life we see today.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Designers have a plan, a purpose, and are working together on a
design, not so with genes. I'd like for you to tell me the purpose
of taking something that we know requires a great deal of planning,
and show me how this has anything to do with evolution where the
beliefs are that evolution had no plan and came to the structures
of life we see today.
Kelly

The designers of computers have no central plan. No central design they are working from. They don't work together, hell they work in direct competition.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Designers have a plan, a purpose, and are working together on a
design, not so with genes. I'd like for you to tell me the purpose
of taking something that we know requires a great deal of planning,
and show me how this has anything to do with evolution where the
beliefs are that evolution had no plan and came to the structures
of life we see today.
Kelly

How many unsuccessful gene combos do YOU think there are out there? Well, they've been doing things like coding for proteins that are important in making mouths and voiceboxes and countless other things for thousands of years. It's not about foresight, it's about success at doing a job.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Designers have a plan, a purpose, and are working together on a
design, not so with genes. I'd like for you to tell me the purpose
of taking something that we know requires a great deal of planning,
and show me how this has anything to do with evolution where the
beliefs are that evolution had no plan and came to the structures
of life we see today.
Kelly

Have you actually read what I have written, or merely skimmed it because "you know better"?

One major similarity between the "gene machines" that we are, and human designers is that unsuccessful designs rarely get off the design board. Most pregnancies that would result in stillbirth or a deformed child are terminated early in the development of the child (naturally). Most bad designs for HDD don't make it off the design table, sometimes not even onto the design table. Still, as Xanthos points out, a few Deskstars do exist. In terms of 'productional' similarities, well, just as HDD have to be produced by a company, progeny have to have parents. Evolution doesn't spontaneously evolve a gene set that produces baby chickens every time a baby chicken is born! Likewise, designers look at popular HDD configurations, look at what makes them good, and then tinkers with that to make it better. In biology, mutation is the tinkering agent, and differential reproductive success the selection criterion.

Now, perhaps you could show me something specifically wrong with my analogy?

Originally posted by scottishinnz

One major similarity between the "gene machines" that we are, and human designers is that unsuccessful designs rarely get off the design board. Most pregnancies that would result in stillbirth or a deformed child are terminated early in the development of the child (naturally).

The human designers decide which computers get off the design board. It does not happen in a vacume, it requires intelligent thought. Also, you assume that women were not "designed" via intelligent thought in order that most genetically defective fertilizations are terminated early.

Originally posted by whodey
The human designers decide which computers get off the design board. It does not happen in a vacume, it requires intelligent thought. Also, you assume that women were not "designed" via intelligent thought in order that most genetically defective fertilizations are terminated early.

I think you mean vacuum. And evolution doesn't happen in a vacuum either. If a new plan is crap then it doesn't get passed on to the next generation.

Originally posted by whodey
The human designers decide which computers get off the design board. It does not happen in a vacume, it requires intelligent thought. Also, you assume that women were not "designed" via intelligent thought in order that most genetically defective fertilizations are terminated early.

Human designers = selection agent.
Intelligent thought = selection pressure.
Women designed = irrelevant.

Well done, you're corroborating my analogy perfectly. Your objections are to the process happenning to an individual design, not to a population of designs, and are therefore unimportant.

I dont know what you are trying to do with this thread. If someone cant understand evolution, there is no way they will understand a weak analogy that is possibly even more complex.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dont know what you are trying to do with this thread. If someone cant understand evolution, there is no way they will understand a weak analogy that is possibly even more complex.

Writing practice? Scottishinnz would make a very good science writer I think.

A review of a great book on the subject: http://tal.forum2.org/darwin

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dont know what you are trying to do with this thread. If someone cant understand evolution, there is no way they will understand a weak analogy that is possibly even more complex.

I merely want to show that everything evolves, although not necessarily as a function of natural selection. Evolution of systems is simple a function of time. (Of course, it also successfully refutes the whole "watch lying in street" argument, since I could also successfully argue that watches evolved too.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I merely want to show that everything evolves, although not necessarily as a function of natural selection. Evolution of systems is simple a function of time. (Of course, it also successfully refutes the whole "watch lying in street" argument, since I could also successfully argue that watches evolved too.

Ideas also evolve. So as this thread proceeds, those of us that actually understand some of it, will generate new ideas which we will analyse and compare with other peoples ideas and discard unsuccessfull ideas and both maintain and expand ideas that we have generated ourselves or recieved from other people.
If, at a later stage of the thread we publish a large volume 'on the evolution of computers and ideas', will the amazing complexity of the said book be evidence for the existence of an external intelligence carefully guiding our thoughts in order to achive a goal?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Have you actually read what I have written, or merely skimmed it because "you know better"?

One major similarity between the "gene machines" that we are, and human designers is that unsuccessful designs rarely get off the design board. Most pregnancies that would result in stillbirth or a deformed child are terminated early in the development of t

Now, perhaps you could show me something specifically wrong with my analogy?

I already pointed it out to you, knowledge! There is a goal in mind
in design, there are rules in place, and as you so carefully pointed
out many bad ideas don't make it off the table. The 'gene
machines' that we are with DNA coding has a lot more detail than
a hard drive or the entire PC system together, the stops and starts
within living systems, the way it grows, and has things working
together puts our computers to shame when it comes to intricacy,
complexity, sophistication, and so on. The knowledge less gene,
that doesn’t have goal, doesn’t have a plan, doesn’t have a desire
to achieve an end result of any kind, you still credit with the DNA code
of life with evolution, what faith!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I already pointed it out to you, knowledge! There is a goal in mind
in design, there are rules in place, and as you so carefully pointed
out many bad ideas don't make it off the table. The 'gene
machines' that we are with DNA coding has a lot more detail than
a hard drive or the entire PC system together, the stops and starts
within living systems, the ...[text shortened]... t of any kind, you still credit with the DNA code
of life with evolution, what faith!
Kelly

Does the sun have knowledge when it causes a mountain lake to be filled?

Knoweldge is not necessary, only success.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Does the sun have knowledge when it causes a mountain lake to be filled?

Knoweldge is not necessary, only success.

Nope the sun doesn't have knowledge, and your claims of success
assumes something occured when you apply it to evolution taking
life and making it more than it was billions of years ago. A statement
of faith isn't proof only a statement of faith.
Kelly