« Google's public policy blog | Main | Behavioral economics and poverty »
Sophisticated, Unintelligent-Non Design
The buds or leaves of many plants are arranged not randomly but in sophisticated spiral structures that exhibit many mathematical properties involving Fibonacci sequences and golden angles.
A theist might see evidence of intelligent design in these structures. An evolutionary biologist (or economist) might see evidence of unintelligent design i.e. they will assume that since the patterns are far from random there must be some functional advantage to spiral patterns and that natural selection operating over many generations results in a convergence to or near the optimum.
There is, however, a third - often overlooked - possibility. Sophisticated structures may be the result of unintelligent, non-design. Here's an interesting article, for example, arguing that the spiral patterns in flowers are the result of physical processes of attraction and repulsion. In particular, check out this cool movie which shows magnetized drops of ferrofluid being dropped into a dish that is magnetized at its edge and filled with silicone oil. The droplets are attracted to the edge of the dish and repelled from one another. What's interesting is that when the droplets are dropped slowly they float directly away from one another in a simple pattern but when they are dropped quickly they form intricate spirals with different properties depending on how quickly they are dropped. (Note that the movie is a bit long - just grab the slider and you will see what is going on). The physical model is only suggestive of what is going on in flowers, of course, but the idea is generating new testable predictions about the kinds of patterns we should see in real flowers.
My suspicion is that quite a few of the sophisticated patterns that we see in nature and elsewhere is neither intelligent nor unintelligent design, i.e. not functional in any direct sense, but rather the result of unintelligent, non-design.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on June 20, 2007 at 07:20 AM in Science | Permalink
Comments
As a theist, my response is: God created a universe in which physical processes naturally lead to sophisticated patterns.
In other words, physical laws are God's tools, just as evolution is. The intelligence is still there, just using a slightly different mechanism.
Posted by: Graeme at Jun 20, 2007 8:01:35 AM
This site is usually a false-dichotomy free zone. Usually.
Posted by: caveat bettor at Jun 20, 2007 8:21:06 AM
Alex, what makes you think these phenomena are not evidence of intelligent design? What greater evidence is demanded?
Posted by: John Goes at Jun 20, 2007 8:42:45 AM
There are lots of these kinds of results in the computer science and complexity literature.
For some rather grandiose examples see "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram.
Posted by: GoodneesOfFit at Jun 20, 2007 9:58:11 AM
"My suspicion is that quite a few of the sophisticated patterns that we see in nature and elsewhere is neither intelligent nor unintelligent design, i.e. not functional in any direct sense, but rather the result of unintelligent, non-design."
No offense, Alex, but, duh.
Posted by: josh at Jun 20, 2007 10:19:48 AM
St. Augustine figured all this stuff out in the 4rth Century. I wish Christians of this century would catch up.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." - The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Jun 20, 2007 10:32:48 AM
I've seen the term "spandrel" used for non-intelligent non-design.
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero at Jun 20, 2007 10:35:03 AM
I think a "spandrel" is technically a feature of an organism that's a by-product of some feature with selective value, but which itself has no selection value. Which is not quite the same thing as the Fibonacci-numbered petals.
Posted by: Anderson at Jun 20, 2007 10:50:27 AM
The idea that many things are probably not due to natural selection has been around since at least Kimura's neutral theory in the 70s. And then there's lots of statistical mechanics to explain critical and self-organizing phenomena...
Posted by: such.ire at Jun 20, 2007 11:13:49 AM
D'Arcy Thompson wrote a long book about this subject entitled Growth and Form. Kind of sad that he's not even mentioned in this connection anymore. It's an amazing book I heartily recommend.
Posted by: Frank Dreben at Jun 20, 2007 11:15:51 AM
One of the more entertaining aspects of the evolution vs. intelligent design discussion is that neither is falsifiable. And to date, at least, there is no evidence on one side that can't be explained away or appropriated by the other. The notion of theistic evolution seems like an appropriate, but emotionally unsatisfying, compromise.
Posted by: Jon at Jun 20, 2007 2:41:48 PM
Antibiotic resistant bacteria have evolved in our lifetimes. Evolutionary biology would predict such an outcome over 1000s of generations (of bacteria).
The theory that species were intelligently designed once would seem to predict that this would not occur.
Or consider the retina. It has a layer of light sensitive cells, and nerves to transmit signals from these cells to the brain. The obvious way to intelligently design this structure would have the light sensitive cells exposed to the light, and the nerves beneath them.
We actually have the nerves on top, where they get in the way of the light.
Squid have a different evolutionary history, inherited their eye designs from different ancestors, and have more sensibly designed eyes.
You would expect to see kludges like the human eye if the design process were a matter of evolution, because evolution blindly chases the local optimum.
I always say that I find it difficult to believe the human animal is a product of intelligent design.
Posted by: anon at Jun 20, 2007 3:12:56 PM
Jon wrote: "One of the more entertaining aspects of the evolution vs. intelligent design discussion is that neither is falsifiable."
This is completely wrong. BOTH evolution and intelligent design theories are falsifiable, that is, capable of being tested.
What might falsify evolution?
1) The discovery of hippogrifs, mermaids, chimeras, or any other sort of creature made of parts taken from widely disparate species. There is no way such a discovery could be reconciled with the Darwinian picture of speciation.
2) Finding human fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs. This would strongly refute the Darwinian view that humans evolved from apes much more recently, after dinosaurs went extinct.
What might falsify ID? The theory posits that all creatures were created by a powerful but human-like intelligent being. What if...
1) Some creatures had features that were completely useless? or
2) Some useful features were found to exhibit imperfections that not even the dumbest human engineer would have designed?
Consider:
1) Whales have tiny hipbones. Humans have erector pili but have so little body hair that standing up on end does nothing to make us warmer. Vestigial organs!!
2) The nerves from the light-sensitive cells at the back of the human eye go out, run over the surface, and then dive back through a hole (the "blind spot") to get to the brain. Any intelligent engineer can suggest the obvious improvement: simply run the wires out the _back_ of the light-sensitive cells, and don't bother with the whole blind spot mess.
The physiologies of real organisms are frequently not designs that would have been made by any intelligent designer. And claiming the "God works in mysterious ways" is a cheap evasion.
Posted by: Jacob Wintersmith at Jun 20, 2007 3:27:55 PM
What a coincidence -- I'm currently listening to a fascinating (to me, anyway) set of lectures from The Teaching Company entitled "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It," by Steven Goldman, a prof. at Lehigh. The material is at a much higher level than the cute title implies -- he deals with, among other things, the question of what we are seeing when we think we see patterns. Highly recommended: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1235&pc=Search
Posted by: jp at Jun 20, 2007 4:38:44 PM
This is being discussed at Overcoming Bias. I questioned the significance of "spandrels" and Eliezer Yudkowsky attacked Stephen Jay Gould, who came up with the concept.
Posted by: TGGP at Jun 20, 2007 5:26:21 PM
One of the more entertaining aspects of the evolution vs. intelligent design discussion is that neither is falsifiable. And to date, at least, there is no evidence on one side that can't be explained away or appropriated by the other. The notion of theistic evolution seems like an appropriate, but emotionally unsatisfying, compromise.
I agree with theism being an emotionally unsatisfying compromise, but as for neither evolution nor intelligent design being falsifiable, consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Try to invalidate that contention. Point being: it makes very little difference if something is falsifiable (assuming it even is) when the irrational are involved.
Religion (and now intelligent design) skirts the issue of validation by very wisely relying on blind faith. Brilliant.
Paradox: an intelligent designer wouldn't create a brain that could reject the theory of evolution in favor of an intelligent design theory.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 20, 2007 8:53:05 PM
As it applies to processes/structures other than life, I think this is a fine way to describe/explain such phenomenons. A more accurate description than 'non-intelligent non-design' might be 'self-organizing but not self replicating' which amounts to much the same since non-self replicating means not subject to the 'design' on natural selection
Could you not say math, as a pure abstraction, is the ultimate non-intelligent, non-designed sophisticated pattern? Especially in that it can usually describe, to a degree, all the physical things we find so nifty?
Actually Euler's equation seems like the strongest evidence for intelligent design of universe. But then again, it would probably be just as scandalous if we lived in a universe without a simple equation relating the fundamental constants/operators.
Posted by: mtc at Jun 20, 2007 9:19:30 PM
Critics of intelligent design clearly don't understand the field. ID'ers accept the existence of self-organizing design. What ID attempts to do is develop scientific criteria for distinguishing between self-organized design and design that requires an intelligence behind it. Most of ID's critics are punching straw men because they have never read anything about it other than the ignorance of the mainstream media.
But even self-organized design couldn't happen without very specific laws of physics. So what appears to be self-organized design could be intelligent design just one step removed. In other words, an intelligence could have created the laws of physics and then let them operate on their own without interfering with them. That is closer to the traditional Christian understanding of how God relates to the physical universe.
As for proving evolution wrong, how about these:
1. Something cannot come from nothing. That is an irrefutable fact. Yet the Big Bang postulate just that.
2. Matter can become energy, but energy cannot become matter. That is another irrefutable fact, yet the Big Bang postulates that it can.
3. Non-living matter cannot produce life. That fact has never been proven wrong. Yet evolution claims it can.
4. If mankind evolved from monkeys, a) we should have found tons of fossil evidence for transitional forms, instead we have found a dozen very controversial pieces, and b) we should be able to see millions of examples of transitional forms in the wild, but we see none.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at Jun 20, 2007 10:19:56 PM
"Functional" is about the difference between value and cost - so structures that reduce costs are just as functional as structures that increase values. Many patterned physical structures can be understood better as reducing costs than as increasing value.
Posted by: Robin Hanson at Jun 21, 2007 12:24:52 AM
@ Jacob Wintersmith
Not a hippogriff in sight. Evolution must be working like a charm. ;)
Seriously, though, what sort of empirically-testable hypotheses might disprove evolution? The fossil record wouldn't really be the best place to look, as it's 1.) far from a complete record of life on this planet and 2.) not really amenable to experimental manipulation.
Posted by: Jon at Jun 21, 2007 1:38:01 AM
Nobody has mentioned this possibility: that the patterns we see are **exactly** that -- patterns *we* see. That certain arrangements are pleasing to us, and when they occur, we notice them and think they are special simply because they please us. Other patterns or arrangements of things don't please us, and so we do not consider them anything special.
Posted by: Russell Nelson at Jun 21, 2007 2:17:21 AM
Fundamentalist, you are wrong. Point by point
1: Seems true enough to me. That's why I was once a Christian, but now I realize I was assuming a lot that didn't necessarily follow but I simply wanted to believe in. I don't know where the universe came from, but that's an entirely separate question from evolution.
2. Wrong. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the impossibility of Maxwell's Demon means that heat can't be reliably turned into other forms of energy, but according to Einstein matter and energy are really the same. What we know as matter is just a very concentrated form of energy. In addition, energy in the form of photons of light can increase the mass of an object that absorbs it. Once again though, this is physics, not evolution.
3: Viruses are non-living matter, but seem pretty close to life. There are no scientists that take "vitalism" seriously, living things are simply a kind of arrangement of molecules, none of which are themselves alive. I predict that scientists will eventually synthesize life from non-life, but we've still got aways to go before then.
4: We DO have tons of fossil evidence! The pieces are not controversial among scientists, and there is no reason to assume that transitional forms would still be around us. Extinction happens. Billions of years from now many species around now will be extinct or will have evolved into very different forms, and many of the species familiar to us will be considered "transitional forms" or dead ends. Right now you are reduced to believing in a God of the Gaps.
Posted by: TGGP at Jun 21, 2007 2:25:49 AM
In the video, it appears that the magnetic field is creating the pattern. When the drops become more numerous, the magnetic effects between the drops increases. However, we know this from chemistry and physics. The trends in physics may have developed based on natural selction - I don't know why or how they would though. In any case, we need evidence of some chemical or physical law in order to discount natural selection.
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Jun 21, 2007 5:33:12 AM
Would group mentality be considered to be unintelligent, non-design?
From BBC News:
An angry Texas crowd has beaten and killed a 40-year-old car passenger after a driver injured a young girl near the site of a busy local festival.
Police said the driver of the car had stopped to check on the health of the girl, said to be aged three or four.
But when the passenger got out to see how she was, he was set upon by a group of up to 20 people before being left lying in a car park, police said.
The girl was hit at low speed and was not seriously injured.
The incident happened near Austin, Texas, as crowd of between 2,000-3,000 people gathered for the annual Juneteenth festival, which commemorates the freeing of American slaves.
'Group mentality'
According to reports, the driver of the car hit the girl at a low speed while moving through a car park, and then stopped so his passenger could check on her condition. But the angry crowd quickly turned on David Rivas Morales, 40, beating him before leaving him lying on the ground.
He was taken to hospital but pronounced dead soon afterwards. A preliminary autopsy listed "blunt force trauma" as the cause of death, the Associated Press reported.
The driver was able to leave the scene in his car.
"Mr Morales could have been assaulted by two to 20 folks," said Harold Piatt, from the Austin police department.
"It's that same crowd mindset of being one face in 1,000. Things get out of hand pretty quickly and people don't have the good sense to stop."
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Jun 21, 2007 5:39:23 AM
Jon wrote: "Not a hippogriff in sight. Evolution must be working like a charm. ;)
Seriously, though, what sort of empirically-testable hypotheses might disprove evolution?"
Here are a couple more examples of facts that would disprove evolution if they were true:
1) If the Earth determined to be 6000 years old, there wouldn't have been enough time for evolutionary processes to produce the diversity of life we find on the planet.
2) If the traits of offspring resulted from simply "blending" the traits of the parents, then advantageous traits which arose through mutation would just be diluted across the entire population. Prior to the acceptance of Mendel's theory of discrete units of inheritance (now known as genes), this was a very serious objection to Darwin's theory.
I suspect, however, that there may be some confusion about what it means for a theory to be "testable" or "falsifiable". For a theory to be testable, we need to be able to think of at least one question about the world which has the following properties:
1) The question can be answered empirically.
2) Some of the conceivable answers to the question contradict the theory's predictions.
As for evolution, scientists have already spent a long time dreaming up such questions, and investigating the world to determine whether the facts of the world are compatible with the theory. And evolution passes all the tests that people have thought of.
Lastly, allow me to explain why the "hippogrif test" is perfectly legitimate. In choosing between rival theories we should accept theories that pass empirical tests and reject theories that fail tests. If two rival (incompatible) theories have both passed all the tests to which they have been subjected, then we should prefer the one that passes the most tests and the most rigorous tests. Intelligent design does not make any predictions about the existence of chimerical creatures. (An intelligent designer might make such creatures. Nowadays, some intelligent designers are doing just that, albeit in a limited manner.) Evolution does make a prediction regarding hippogrifs, and it makes the right prediction. So even if ID didn't fail the tests which I described in my previous comment, the hippogrif test would be a good reason to prefer evolution over ID.
Posted by: Jacob Wintersmith at Jun 21, 2007 5:15:23 PM
