Evolution and the 'Wisdom of Crowds'

An anonymous reader writes "An essay by a developer of recommendation systems makes a case for why so many people have trouble grasping Darwin's theory of evolution. Downplaying its conflict with religion, the essay suggests that evolution is in a specific class of "equilibrium seeking" concepts that tend to be extremely counterintuitive to most people. The hypothesis is supported by the observation that so many people reject the notion that evolution-like systems such as Wikipedia, prediction markets, and recommendation systems can actually be effective. Particularly fascinating is the description of his surprisingly simple algorithm for competing in the Netflix prize contest."

typo

>why so many *Americans* have trouble grasping Darwin's theory of evolution
There, fixed it for you.

Re:typo

All religions seem to be awash with variations, each sure they are the One True Version and that the others are deluded.

That's true of humans in general. Religions don't have a monopoly on arrogance.

Re:typo

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that all muslims think that way.

Welcome fellow Belgian. It's horrible to see how we've been conditioned in excusing ourselves for statements which "potentially could be read in a racist way" because of the constant idea we are "against multiculturism" and are overly sensitive to "cultural differences".

Re:typo

I do not just think that. And yes, for the moment this is not going to happen in (most of) America.

muslims inside england use terror to avoid evolution in biology lessons :
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=37975 [muslimvillage.net]

in france:
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/02/france-muslim-anti-evolutionist.html [blogspot.com]

This is in Turkey, the most moderate muslim nation existing (where both islamists and atheists massacre eachother, creating a balance) :
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17book.html?_r=1&oref=slogin [nytimes.com]

If you thought Christians are trouble when it concerns evolution, you're in for a rude awakening. Christians don't kill you. Don't threaten you. And they don't gang up on your family just because you don't "respect" creationism. Muslims do.

Re:typo

>Christians don't kill you. Don't threaten you
There is a theatre production by the Reduced Shakespeare Company where they do the entire bible in 90 mins or somesuch. *Everytime* I have seen it there have been jossling, abusive Christians outside telling me I was going to hell for watching it. I've also numerous reports of people killing in the name of Christianity. I think we need to be clear on this, all religions, whether Muslim, Christian or whatever have extremist factions and that's where the problems are. the mainstream ones are generally fairly laid back.

Re:typo

But you're cowards, so simply lamenting that the universities of ankara or teheran or baghdad for example preaches creationism, you just don't do. Because doing it, might get you actually hurt. Ok brave guy, get your facts straight: Ankara is in Turkey, a secular country where religion and state are separate. Women with Islamic head garb are not allowed into universities, let alone preach creationism at institutions of higher learning. Until we (americans) moved in, Baghdad was in a secular country, with a definite anti-religion bent. It's only because we f**ked it up that worthless religious leaders found the ability (and the arms and the encouragement) to kill people who do not think like them. Read this [blogspot.com] for a heartfelt, first-person account of what it was like before and after americans moved in. Tehran is a mess where creationism is indeed taught in universities. True secularism is probably a very foreign concept to most Americans, as the usual middle-class American experience is to belong to a church or synagogue from a very early age. That kind of education colors your thinking (and non-thinking) for life. But you just wanted to engage in bashing muslims. Too bad your xenophobia was coupled with ignorance (not very surprising). You picked 3 examples, and 2 were outright wrong. I'm sure you'll try your muslim-bashing again, in another thread. Better luck next time!

Re:typo

Journalist to George Bush (senior): Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Current stats:

85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
  7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004) (see Evangelical category for more information)
  38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
  37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
  Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
  11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)
  s/Christian/Muslim/g

Nuff said... No further comment...

Re:typo

Do kids ever get polled on these things?

NAMBLA polls kids all the time.

*ducks*

Re:typo

Actually it's largely an American thing.

I brought this subject up several times in a conversation with europeans. Those who don't follow slashdot and similar sites hadn't heard about the concept of "intelligent design" at all, and needed it explained. And all of them went "WTF?" at the explanation.

The vast majority of the population hasn't even heard of ID. All the religious arguments I participated in (and there were quite a few) always revolved around the existence/inexistence of a deity, evolution wasn't brought up even once.

Re:typo

From the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe [coe.int]:

1. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.
[...]
19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:
19.1. to defend and promote scientific knowledge;
19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
19.3. to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
19.4. to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;
19.5. to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

So yeah, Europe is doing something to stop pseudoscience from finding its way into schools.

Re:typo

That's a big logic jump you made. Not all religions ban the teaching of evolution. Pope John Paul II never condemned evolution. Catholic schools throughout Europe teach evolution without any conflict of interest.
Religion and science are not viewed as polar opposites. They do disagree on several points but that does not mean anyone with religion is against scientific teaching. Darwin himself was obsessed with the Bible.

Re:typo

Not just Americans, but most people across the world don't believe in evolution.

Got any proof? Because I've got some that shows you're wrong. Link [nationalgeographic.com].

Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

why so many *Americans* have trouble grasping Darwin's theory of evolution

IMHO, the reason why this is so difficult is because of the awe and wonder (and fear!) we feel when we see the magnificent complexity and interconnectedness in the nature around us. We are today not very different from our cavemen ancestors in the sense that we still go through most of our lives in a state of bewilderment, and most of our efforts focus on bringing some measure of control and understanding over the complexity that is bombarding us every minute! Technological evolution for that matter is not very different from biological evolution. The only advantage we have with technological evolution is that it is evolving in our lifetime. Trying to make your grandparent understand modern technology is probably as difficult as making them understand evolution and the related nuances such as game theory and Nash equilibrium. This is merely because the said technology of our time did not evolve with our grandparents, but with us. For our grandparents, this is simply a case of trying to cope with future evolution instead of past evolution as is the case with the Darwinian/Dawkinsian theory.

What is happening today to the common man is that he/she is getting immune to technology, which leads us to the possibly false premise that the lay person understands technology any better than say, evolution. Given this assault of seemingly illogical and complex information (which completely undermines a person's ego, mind you), religion provides a very convenient framework to make life simple, seemingly secure, and less fragile. Religion is hence, more of a survival tool for a society that shields away a person's insecurities. For that matter, that is the reason why societies and families formed in the first place, which is to increase the probability of our survival and proliferation. For the common man, religion and society practically mean the same thing, and hence interchangeably attribute the positive aspects of one with the other. This is also why they are willing to put up with the restrictions and rules of religion, just as we do for society's laws and restrictions!

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

"Retailers in the U.S. are in the red all year up until "Black Friday" -- the day following Thanksgiving. This is mostly due to the existence of multiple religious holidays where gift giving/exchange is encouraged that fall on or around the winter solstice."

I know for a fact that for many retailers this is not true - unless you have a source I call BS.

Your other examples are rather meaningless as because there is a demand for the bible and other books, and so people write and sell them. That's just economics. You'd be better off pointing out the amount of money Churches take in every year from donations and not paying taxes.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

Actually Darwinian evolution makes that extremely unlikely. Anything as common as religion can not poses a selective disadvantage.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

1) invent god(s)
2) market said gods
3) prophet

Fixed.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

IMHO, the reason why this is so difficult is because of the awe and wonder (and fear!) we feel when we see the magnificent complexity and interconnectedness in the nature around us

Apart from the fear thing, I have exactly that reason to explain why I have always believed in evolution (since reading about it myself in a book at 7). Even then I was struck by the vastness of the universe, and the idea that some god person had made it all seemed a bit too simple. Even then I was utterly fascinated by astronomy, and looking at the night sky, especially in Australia, where we actually had a visible star scape, was an experience that filled me not with religious conviction, but with a determination to find explanations for what I saw. 'God did it' was never an option.

Having grown up now I realise why so many people need to believe in the biblical creation myth. Believe that and everything becomes easy, simple enough that you don't have to worry about it. Reject it and boy have you got a lot of work to do. For one thing you actually have to understand things, not pass it of as 'the work of god'.

I find it amusing that creationists/ID'ers seem to want a stupid god, incapable of anything but focusing on one planet in the vast universe, as interested in the fall of birds (why is it always bad stuff?) then the formation of galaxies. I prefer the idea that if god exists, he was smart enough to set things in motion at some point (at the start of this universe? a previous one, no idea), and it all works without intervention. Of course this implies that there is no god, since a system that does not require a god to run doesn't need one to exist at all.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

That's pretty much what I tell people when they start preferring religion to science - they are the same thing! Do you really believe God was too stupid to create a universe that didn't have to be held together with magic? Studying science is studying God's work, and thus you are in fact learning about God.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

One extra thing which I thought about was why the bloody hell would a God create us?

Have you ever drunk a lot of beer, woken up the next morning and gone through that special "I did what?" moment?

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

Denying God because you understand the tools he uses is like denying Michaelangelo because you once saw a chisel.

Understand? did I say that? Want to understand yes, but understand the reason for the existence of the universe? hah, as if I could. The best I can do is study and research using the scientific method.

What I do though is not put myself into a cushioned frame of mind that requires no conclusions beyond 'god did it'.

Eh.

The hypothesis is supported by the observation that so many people reject the notion that evolution-like systems such as Wikipedia, prediction markets, and recommendation systems can actually be effective.

While there may be many that reject that these systems can be effective at all, I'd suggest that there's many more that would actual argue that while these systems do work, they aren't necessarily the best or only method that is effective.

He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

Interesting discussion, but the obvious missing piece is the evolution of ideas.

Societies may have "invented" the notion of religion because religion led to ethics, which led to less killing of their neighbors. All of the sudden, it's survival of the fittest, as non-ethical tribes tended to be killed off, while religious tribes thrived.

An obvious second example is the notion of being against birth control (or for large families). Tribes that were for large families and passed those beliefs down to their children tended to grow.

So my question is: Even if there is no God, and you are an atheist, is it possible that a world containing religious people is actually a "better" society than a world full of atheists? The Earth's people evolved into a world of mixed beliefs (some religious, some not), which could be argued to be the survival of the fittest idea or world. The mixed-belief world appears to be the "fittest" world, as opposed to such less-fit worlds of all atheists or all Christians, as examples.

If we evolved to be a mixed world of beliefs, as the "fittest", perhaps we should accept that, and quit trying to convert people with arguments for our favorite religious/non-religious belief.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

Historically, some of the worst atrocities have been carried out in the name of God. While your idea has merit for a very young civilizations, religion as a means of social control became obsolete as soon as secular law was invented. Since then it's only been abused to manipulate and extort people, at least on a scale that has any impact on society as a whole. (Exceptions made for those small groups who actually practice what they preach.)

Evolution is a pretty slow process... I guess 3000 years or so isn't quite long enough to breed out the religious nutjobs.
=Smidge=

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

I find it very difficult to think a world with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson is better than one without them.

Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson do not make up all of Christianity. Just like Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and Stalin do not make up all of atheism. But if we were to play by your rules:

I find it very difficult to think a world with Pol Pot and Stalin is better than one without them.

For that matter, I think these two have killed more people this century than all of Christianity has in the past 500 years. So, using your logic, it seems to me that the world would be a better place without atheism.

Just adding up the body count should convince anyone that religion is a bad idea for humanity.
I think that statement has just been shot to hell!

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

1. Hitler was not an atheist. I don't know why this myth keeps coming up so often. His religious beliefs [wikipedia.org] are unclear, but he referred to "God" at various times, and there seems to be no evidence of him actually being an atheist.

2. The claim is not "some people who happened to be theists also did bad things", but rather that "people did bad things in the name of their religious belief". If you want to counter that, you need to show how someone's lack of belief caused them to do bad things.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

hitler was a catholic, stalin also was (an orthodox) christian, was even in a church school.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

The Romans were pagans not atheists

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

Stalin once studied to be a priest.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

I suspect that the original humans had no notion of religion - not that everyone was an atheist, but that every human on earth had no notion of a higher being, one way or the other.

I've wondered about that as well. I suspect that the "believe your parents" bit is partially the origin of religion. My reason is partially the fact my daugher (3.5 years) wants an explanation for everything. "Just because" does not satisfy her, but she isn't quite ready for the real explanation for a lot of things. I'm sure I could get to quit asking "Why?" with enough references to god. Humans seem to want to understand but frequently don't have the capacity or knowledge required, so left to them selves they abstract the problem away another step. ie. Saying god causes the rain isn't a explanation of how or why god would want rain, but it answers the immediate question of why it's raining.

I really don't want to read "The God Delusion" as you suggest. Why are you pushing your religion on me? ;-) That's my point!

Just to be pedantic I did say, "if you read." I mentioned it more as a citation for an idea that wasn't really mine.
But in reality I do believe the world would be a better place if religion would go away.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

No, you can't say that a world of atheists would be a better or worse world, since a world of people who don't believe in God isn't really different from a world of people who don't believe in pink unicorns or celestial teapots. Saying what someone doesn't believe doesn't tell you enough about what they do believe.

I suggest a new strategy, believe in the god.

Except teapots don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they're disbelieved.

actually...

Even if there is no God, and you are an atheist, is it possible that a world containing religious people is actually a "better" society than a world full of atheists?

Well, no [creighton.edu]. Japan, Holland, Canada, and a slew of other nations have a lower instance of religious belief, and a lower rate of crime, lower infant mortality, etc. Even within the USA, the Bible Belt states (actually the Red States in general) have higher infant mortality rates, lower productivity rates, higher crime rates, worse education systems, along with being worse-off in a range of other criteria. It isn't a stark difference--I'm not saying they're in the dark ages--but the difference is easy to spot if you look at the data.

And in one way or another, we're all atheists. Is the world worse off because people don't believe in Thor anymore?

Re:actually...

I've seen a few of those studies and they never really address causation. It is just as valid to assume that pour living conditions tend to promote a need for social and psychological support networks often found in religious institutions leading to religious belief, as opposed to religious belief causes pour living conditions.

"Wisdom Of Crowds"

The "Wisdom Of Crowds" put George W Bush in power, twice. Had Americans believing Saddam caused 9/11 and was a threat. Then of course there is religion..

I can't wait for this meme to die.

As the parent mentioned, the "Wisdom of Crowds" put Bush in power. Honestly, it seems to me to be nothing more than overhyped bullshit pushed alongside "Web 2.0" and other over-hyped concepts that are filling the current bubble with hot air. People love to cite Wikipedia as proof of the wisdom of crowds, but let's stop and analyze that for a moment:

Who controls the content of Wikipedia articles? Is it a large crowd of seemingly random contributors each imparting their own bits of wisdom? Or is it a small set of contributors providing the base of an article with a few mostly minor revisions submitted by random people passing by? In my experience, it's the latter. Usually a small set of people, no more than 3 to 5 which make the core of a Wikipedia article.

These same people are also generally the ones that cultivate the article and keep it consistent and well editted. Occasionally these same few people come to disagreements and end up in "edit wars" in which they call in another set of few members interested in judging to judge the issue. There's no "crowd" at work here, it's a lot of small groups of vested individuals who have interest in a particular domain and an efficient way of contributing and collaborating in that domain.

There may be hundreds of such groups, but they typically stick to their domain or they become edit whores and stick to minor revisionary work on a large amount of articles. Either way, I don't see much of a "crowd" once I break it down and look close, much less a wise crowd. Have you ever noticed that different subsections of Wikipedia have their own "feel" or "identity"? Maybe the particular manner of phrasing or the type of consistency shown throughout that sub-section which differs somewhat from another unrelated domain. This is largely a result of edits by the aforementioned small group of vested individuals. Each group leaves their own tint which colors a section and gives it life.

Wisdom of Crowds? No. Small, intelligent groups of people focused on achieving a well defined goal? Yes. If you really want to test this "Wisdom of Crowds" concept, take a look at SomethingAwful.com or any of the various large web forums and learn of the "Wisdom of Crowds". Even there, it's generally a very few amount of people contributing intelligently with the rest just being meaningless drivel. This meme needs to die.

Re:"Wisdom Of Crowds"

The "Wisdom Of Crowds" put George W Bush in power, twice.

Actually in 2000 the "wisdom of the crowds" picked Al Gore. The electoral college and the Supreme Court put GW in the Whitehouse.

the wisdom of the crowds

Is a great theoretical concept, but unfortunately it only makes sense in the context of assuming that everybody really thinks for themselves. As soon as the media enter into the equation the crowd becomes as manipulatable as the most stupid upper limit that can still be sold a bill of goods. If that's > 50% then the equation no longer holds, no matter how much the rest invests in staying educated. You'd almost have to filter out media bias somehow because otherwise anybody with an agenda and some money to burn will come out on top. Witness politics, marketing of unnecssary goods and services and so on.

Crowds contain individuals ...

Crowds contain individuals, and some of these individuals know what they are on about. Collect together a sufficiently large crowd and you will find a number of experts on many different subject.

Isn't that the obvious conclusion?

language evolution

If people have a problem grasping 'evolution' as a concept, ask them to think about language evolution. Languages more obviously evolve, 'speciations', 'hybridisations' etc of English can easily be identified. The analogy with Darwinism isn't exact, but it is surprisingly close.

Huh

From the summary (emphasis mine):

Darwin's theory of evolution. Downplaying its conflict with religion

The title of the essay:

Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Bad analogy?

> Comparing it to evolution, an edit of Wikipedia might be considered equivalent to a genetic mutation. A
> mutation, of course, is non-directed...that is, "random." It could be bad or good, but most of the time
> it is bad.

IMNSHO this is simply untrue. If this is true Wikipedia is dead for long: it never keeps a large, visible "pool" of "genes" (different version of the same article) that the "nature" (viewing public) can "select", and the "nature" simply is too busy to "select" them anyway. They have many version of the same article, but there are not many who will go into the version and select to revert to one of those. To me, the success of Wikipedia is that those who don't know much about a subject will normally refrain from editing the subject, so most edits are actually of a rather high quality. It is a social behavior, not an evolution behavior.

Evolution vs Wikipedia

Those who doubt the veracity of 'evolution-like systems' such as "Wikipedia, prediction markets, and recommendation systems" should not be compared to those who argue against evolution. The Theory of Evolution has a great deal of scientific evidence supporting it; indeed, much of the 'theory' is actually considered scientific Fact.
While I support Wikipedia, I don't consider those who doubt its value to be idiots. Those who argue against evolution, on the other hand....

Two Ways of Summing it Up

1. People -- as a general rule -- process complex ideas granularly. People are also generally lazy thinkers who do not attempt to refine their comprehension with falsifiable methodology. As a result, individual perceptions of value are often biased towards the simplest conclusions at the greatest level of granularity that a person can casually grasp rather than on evidence that intellect and practiced reasoning might produce. In large groups, it is possible to predict behaviors through statistical sampling using assumptions based on this model of granularity and intelligence. The conclusions of such studies are, themselves, subject to individual evaluation under the same model of granular perception. People who don't understand this are stupid religious types. If those same people were smart then they would be compelled to believe in evolution.

2. Most people can't see the forest for the trees. Everybody who is not as smart as the author needs to take remedial education and secular-deprogramming classes.

Now you don't have to read the article.

You're welcome. :)

Nothing new..

Just a n-dimensional random distribution, with small adjustment steps. The 'n' of the system being chosed by hand, not even automatically computed. It works for Netflix because the domain being modeled is not 'wild' statistically, and have a very simple topology.

The 'presumed' relation with a 'wisdom of the crowds' concept is just coincidence, try to apply such a simple system to a really complex domain (ie: natural language syntax) and it will fail.

On the other hand, it's true that simple statistics can be used for a lot of tasks (ie: language/topic detection), but nothing really new here.

Faith in people

I recently had to start a Wiki for 1st year undergraduate students. I found it really hard to make it writable by everybody, since I was sure that it would result in a lot of vandalism. However, if you think about Wikipedia, the vast majority of pages can be edited by anyone and yet you almost never see malicious edits by people just dicking about. In the limit, people who visit Wikipedia prefer order. That's actually quite a comforting idea.

Obviously the more subtle stuff [geeksaresexy.net] is harder to protect against.

The emperor has no clothes!

Call me crazy, but I don't see how using systems based on the intelligent operation of individual comes even close to explaining the random chance of evolution. The author has had an epiphany: intelligent design can be used to help religious nuts understand that although evolution is non-intuitive it is clearly correct.

Creationism and Evolution Artificially at Odds?

"Conventional wisdom says that the primary reason why so many people do not accept Darwin's theory of evolution is that they find it threatening to their religious beliefs. There is no question that religion is a big part of the reason behind the large number of people who reject evolution. But I am convinced that just as often, the cause and effect is reversed: people hold onto their fundamentalist religious beliefs because evolution by natural selection -- the strongest argument against an Old Testament-type creator -- is so counter-intuitive to so many."

Honestly, I find these kinds of statements to be a bit off-base. I really get the feeling that Creationism and Evolution/Darwinism are artificially pitted against each other as if one or the other has to "win."

The interesting thing is that there is absolutely nothing in either of the standpoints that cannot coexist with the other. I would say that the consistant framing of them being exclusive is what causes resistance (from both sides, most likey) when it isn't even needed.

If one wants to get anyone to believe in a scientific theory they are having difficulties with, framing it as, "you should believe this because what you believe is wrong and you are stupid," is not really going to win anyone over. Especially when one could easily take the stance of, "here's why this theory makes sense, and really it doesn't have anything to do with what you may or may not believe."

I've seen no strong theology that would rule out that evolution did not happen. Creationism is about a supernatural force overseeing things--it says nothing specific about how things actually happened. (And, I think, most theologists will agree that Genesis is highly metaphorical.)

So, bottom line is, if science-minded people want others to "see the light" on this one, stick to the facts and leave the religion-bashing alone. Making people defensive generally is not an effective way of getting an idea across.

Re:Creationism and Evolution Artificially at Odds?

Generally, the use of creationism references young Earth creationism... where part of the belief is that the Earth is only a couple of thousand years old. This flavor of creationism can't stand alongside evolution.

Nephilium

Re:Creationism and Evolution Artificially at Odds?

The interesting thing is that there is absolutely nothing in either of the standpoints that cannot coexist with the other.

Err... I'm actually lost for words. You are seriously saying that evolution (things change into whatever is most appropriate at that moment, with little regard for past or future) and design (things are as they are because they were intentionally made that way) are not diametrically opposed theories?

Well, there's just the small, unimportant, inconsequential matter of intent.

Also, a total reversal of roles, look:

I've seen no strong theology that would rule out that evolution did not happen. Creationism is about a supernatural force overseeing things--it says nothing specific about how things actually happened. (And, I think, most theologists will agree that Genesis is highly metaphorical.)

No, creationism isn't about that at all. The very point of it is that it starts with something complex, in fact the most complex things of them all - the creator.

Evolution, on the other hand, claims that complexity emerges during the process of evolution, which starts with very simple things.

I really see no way for two theories to coexist if their claimed starting points are exact opposites. If you can't even agree on that, everything down from there is either dishonesty or an intentional scam of one theory to not have its core assumptions examined too closely.

This is a stupid conclusion

The success of wikipedia has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

1. It is not like a 1000 monkeys typing randomly on a type writer came up with the wikipedia.

2. The content of the wikipedia is controlled more so than most people think. There are editors, there is peer review etc.

3. You don't find a million slightly varying copies on a single topic which are then "naturally selected"

A wikipedia has as much value as shouting out a question in a packed stadium to receive the answers from a million people. Most of those who will bother to answer are those who will know something about the subject and most who won't answer are most likely those who don't know enough about the topic to comment.

How is this in any sense similar to evolution?

Re:This is a stupid conclusion

Evolution, in the Darwinian natural sense, is accumulative, not completely random. Richard Dawkins explains it very well in "The Blind Watch Maker". Wikipedia's content is just like evolution. Articles are first created (and as we know, the theory of evolution does not cover actual creation of life, but how it changes), and are slowly perfected, with each "edit" being a mutation/new trait in the gene pool which is carried on to the next generation. The parts of the article which are not altered are analogous to genes which are not affecting the "organism" of the article as severely (either positively or negatively) as the change which was effected. As an article reaches its most suitable state, where further edits are not required, you have an article that is completely correct, with no "genes" (edits) that need removing/adding.

The notion of n monkeys typing randomly is used to illustrate the absurdity of evolution. It would be a great illustration if it were not intrinsically flawed from its very conception. A better analogy would be, again as Richard Dawkins again demonstrated in said documentary/book, that each change the monkeys made that took their current works of Shakespeare away from the actual works of Shakespeare were ignored, or favoured less, than changes which improved the similarity of the monkeys' work with that of Shakespeare.

So, in a nutshell, it's similar to evolution as you clearly don't understand evolution enough to ask that question :)

Could it also be the defenders?

The defenders of the theory of evolution often get as hot under the collar at any challenge to it, as your stereotype fundamentalist gets at having his or her religion challenged. People instinctively see that as more of a sign of **religious** faith in evolution than pure rational, empirical faith in evolution.

Mod me down for calling it as I see it if you want, but don't even try to deny that many of the advocates of evolution aren't as faithfully passionate about it as their creationist counterparts. I know the excuse, that "science is under attack in America." If it is under attack, it is under attack by many things, not just religion. Just take a serious look at how Watson is being treated over his comments about race and genetics. Even most scientists are unwilling to consider the possibility that *gasp* if evolution be true, not all races are created equal, and that some might be statistically inferior to others. We don't live in a perfectly rational world, live with it.

Oh God Ape, not another unnecessary divide decuss.

...ion.

Evolution of a system like Wikipedia..... some would argue that wikipedia is of intelligent design and not evolution.

So just where does one place the divide between the concepts of evolution and creation?

Perhaps it just the game of abstraction physics [abstractionphysics.net], the changing of meaning of abstract words or the application of abstract words in different and sometime seemingly conflicting ways.

Wikipedia is all about putting together strings or sequences of abstract words.

The physics about it is the hardware it operates from and the actions applied in using it. But the abstractions are only representations of concepts, ideals, etc, ultimately stored in binary form compatable to the hardware and in such form not very meaningful to us humans but accessed by us at the higher level abstraction of "words" that define meaning of words and terms.

So.... there is the God Ape (unlike the ape god) who has evolved to be a God Man... ????

Can us humans separate the abstract from the concrete (physical world) without de-evolving back to ape? Of course not!

There is no divide between god the abstract and evolutions the concrete recording of the results, they are symbotic.

But physically there is also some evidence that our current life form genetics program was manipulated to be what it is today, with intent by a different genetically programmed and intelligent life form. Should such manipulation be so hard to imagine with our now known ability to do so ourselves, or is it the other life form that is hard to accept?

Such Genetic manipulation ability would not be possible to comprehend and communicate, without development of abstractions.

What do other animals think or perceive of man in comparison to themselves (more advanced?) such as dolphins, apes, lions, tiger and bears, etc...

Dilbert Blog

There is a part of me hoping this article gets discussed by Dilbert creator/evolution denier Scott Adams, and another part dreading it. link [typepad.com]

Randomness

I think the main problem with people's understanding of evolution is the fact that it is not taught very well in schools, and people get the strong idea that evolution is a random process. I also think it is a problem with the timescales involved, which are hard for the human mind to grasp.

Secularism in UK

The UK has less trouble accepting evolution - we also have more trouble accepting religion -

"The comprehensive professional research in 2006 by Tearfund found that two thirds (66% - 32.2 million people) in the UK have no connection with any religion or church". Even those that do have (IMHO) often have little or no belief in the churches ideals and often attend out of social and class trends and peer or family pressure.

Those who do accept their beliefs (my guess is between 1 and 5% ) do so with a zeal that matches any American church, and can be equally unaccepting of any evidence of evolution.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia's only selection mechanism is consensus and as such it's only evolution is towards not offending the preconceived notions of those who edit it. Once WP has nothing in it anyone objects to it will have adaptd to its environment perfectly.

That does not strike me as being a great goal for an encyclopedia, even one which uses WP's rather odd definition of that word.

TWW

Subtle differences

"An essay by a developer of recommendation systems makes a case for why so many people have trouble grasping Darwin's theory of evolution."

Does this mean understanding, or being in agreement with? If the latter, the overall argument becomes suspect for possible logic holes due to incorporating the author's personal bias into it, irregardless of the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory.

Bullshit.

The only reason people do not accept Evolution is because they cannot believe that apes are our brothers. Partly because of mis-placed egotism, and mostly because of religion. After-all if we were made in "god's image" to "rule over all beasts", then it Evolution is an unacceptable concept.

Religious fundies = Socialists/Communists

If I'm reading this correctly, the reason that religious folks reject evolution is the exact same reason why leftists reject free markets and are champions of central planning. One side is a God figure and on the other, that figure is subsumed by an all-wise, all-knowing State that will run things. Both have no faith, to use a loaded term, in the wisdom of the masses. Iiiiiinteresting!

Why I Don't Believe in Darwinian Evolution

First, I could happily take my positions on my faith and say that Darwinian evolution is how God accomplished what God accomplished.

But as I examined things, as best I could, it became apparent that Darwinian evolution rests not on observation and experiments. It rests on philosophy. There has to be a naturalistic cause, therefore there is a naturalistic cause.

So when people from the ID or creationist camps, say things like X cannot be produced by a step-by-step naturalistic process the response is an appeal to structures that are lost to time or just-so stories.

That's when I realized Darwinism is unfalsifiable. Any data can be incorporated into the paradigm. There is nothing that could be discovered in a biological organism which would make a Darwinist say "random mutation and natural selection can't explain that."

So before convincing me it is true, tell me how it can be falsified. And don't confuse evidence for common descent with evidence for rm+ns.

Also, I have to say the lack of any plausible Origin of Life scenario should be troubling to a Darwinist. The comeback that "evolution only deals with pre-existing life" is silly, because naturalism is what is at issue. If naturalism falls, the foundation of dogmatic Darwinism falls as well. Which brings me back to the main problem with Darwinism, it rests on philosophy and question-begging.

NOW I get it...

So God created Wikipedia!

Creationism and Biblical Innerancy

If you want to better understand what Creationism is, you might want to take a look at Biblical Innerancy [wikipedia.org]:

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position [1] that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction...

(from the article linked to above).

Personally, I think Biblican inerrancy is totally untenable since the Bible isn't even internally consistent. But, if you are a Biblical innerantist, then Creationism is an obvious consequence.

Another evolution-like wisdom-of-crowds system

Here is another evolution-like wisdom of crowds system, called Picbreeder [picbreeder.org]. It is an Interactive Evolutionary Computing (IEC) system, where users choose the images that they like to spawn the next generation. When the user is satisfied with the image, he or she publishes it to the site. Then, any other user can continue to evolve the image. Many of the images, after passing through a few hundred generations, and a dozen or so users' hands, end up looking like real things (e.g. faces, cars, animals).

Germs, viruses, and rats...

...not to mention human jawbones and teeth, are all undergoing measurable change in our lifetimes. Hell, the germs are changing measurably in just a few years. Hybrid plants plants used to be developed by the intelligent guidance of natural selection. Things change. What's so hard to understand about that?

God created "survival of the fittest"

... that's why it works. In addition, improvement through random events, driven by survival of the fittest, provides no explanation for how DNA first formed. Based on the evidence, a "scientifically minded" person must conclude that the current "scientific" explanation is lacking. BTW, comparing Wikipedia with random mutations has three drawbacks. First, very few edits are "random". The posters intend, at least, to add intelligent content. Second, a bad edit can be corrected without killing the article. Third, "good" additions and corrections are made by people who are both intelligent and informed.

Weren't Wikipedia and all its articles Created?

It's not as if Wikipedia somehow suddenly appeared on the internet without an Intelligent Design. It actually has a very Intelligent Design, that of allowing multiple intelligent creators to create the same articles together.

What, exactly, is evolutionary (as in formed by random chance processes) about Wikipedia? Do the bytes randomly change and form new words and then people decide which ones to keep? No. There are new creations which other people decide which ones to keep.

I don't buy it

It *doesn't* seem counter-intuitive at all to me (none of the given examples do). Why does this affliction disproportionately affect Americans, and not, say Europeans? I don't buy the argument that people believe Crazy Thing X because they don't understand Scientific Fact Y. There's lots of physics that I don't understand but it doesn't lead me to believe in smurfs or unicorns. If anything this affliction is not due to the "counter-intuitiveness" of the fact, it's due to some predilection to fantasy. How much more "intuitive" are the fantastical notions of religion? Since most of them are entirely unsupported by empirical observation I find them all "counter-intuitive".

Missing the point

The point of the article seems to be that religious belief makes acceptance of evolution more difficult. I agree that the need to fabricate gods to explain unknown phenomina is hardwired into humanity. This probably has something to do with our love of a good story. As far as not intuiting evolution, most people just don't think at all. The best example of sysem evolution in my memory was the old Napster. You could see the poor quality or incomplete files diminish.

Self Organizing Maps

His netflix is very similar to a standard methodology called Self Organizing Maps (SOM). It's cool to implement because it is automatic. You can use it to map 3 or more dimensions onto 2 dimensions and look at it. The output also changes depending on how you start it. Map the same data set in reverse or some other order and you end up with different clustering. You can use it to solve a problem as the author described. Or, you can use it to simplify complex input before you feed it into a further model, neural net, or whatever.

What about the "madness of crowds"?

There is a book written in 1841 by Charles Mackay titled "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". It describes some "bubble" markets, such as the Dutch Tulip Craze (when people would invest their life savings in a tulip bulb, only to see the market eventually crash) and then goes on to describe other non-market crazes.

The book is frequently referenced in discussions of investment strategy, especially so-called "contrarian investing", which often makes money for its followers. The contrarian investing principle can be summarized as being that when the crowd overwhelmingly agrees on something, go the other way.

The book describes market behavior at least as well as Adam Smith's "unseen hand", and may also well describe other aspects of crowd behavior. I had never heard of the "wisdom of crowds" before this posting, but I have heard of the "madness of crowds" for many years.

Minor quibble with TFA...

This comment will probably be lost in all of the stuff that happens anytime anyone even casually mentions "God" in any context, but one minor quibble with TFA. And I think you'll find it actually weakens his argument to say this, and what I'm about to say actually strengthens what TFA is saying. From the article:

...evolution by natural selection -- the strongest argument against an Old Testament-type creator...

Evolution by natural selecton isn't the strongest argument against an Old Testament-type creator. The story of Creation as given by the Old Testament follows the form of Hebrew poetry. And the author of it clearly could not have been at the point of Creation. Those who say that the author was somehow inspired to write the exact sequence of events of the creation of the world by God such that they would be exact are... well, putting things into the Bible that aren't there. Trying to apply scientific logic to fails even in the absence of evolutionary theory, given that there is day and night as early as the first day, but no sun until later. Only the dim-witted would consider the Creation myth a literal retelling of the story of Creation.

The theory of Evolution, our growing understanding of our universe and how we apply it are, if anything, fulfillment of Genesis 1, verses 27-28: "(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (28) God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"

So it's hardly accurate to call Evolution a strong argument against an OT-type Creator. The text of Genesis 1 itself is the strongest argument against Creationism, but hardly any argument at all against the existence of a Creator as the Bible describes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Young Earth Creationists can claim that their interpretation is derived from neither a literal nor an educated interpretation of the Bible. Creationism is ultimately anti-Biblical. But it's taking that silliness to an extreme to then say that Evolution somehow is an argument against the existence of a God.

Boosting

It is well known that combining weak classifiers makes a good one. The prediction markets maybe if we stretch Wikipedia goes in that direction. I am not sure about evolution part though.

Just my 2 cents.

Why people have trouble with Darwin.

As Carl Sagan pointed out "Human beings are like butterflies who live for a day and think it's forever."

What people really have trouble grasping, is a number like 1 billion years. Change in nature happens so slowly that we don't notice it at all.

Two inconsistencies in the article...

Inconsistency 1

Near the end of the article, the author states the following:

The concept of gradualism -- the "slow, cumulative, one-step-at-a-time" process described in Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable -- is central to evolution.

OK, so he's a Continuous Evolution (CE) man is he? Well... no.

Let's have a look at the model he created for the Netflix prize.

The program iterates over and over, until the positions stabilize: that is, an equilibrium is reached. This takes quite a few hours, but once it has done it, small changes (such as modifying the data, or modifying a parameter within the program) take very few iterations to re-stabilize the model.

Ah, so a change in the environment results in several iterations of rapid adaptation, followed by a period of stability, followed by further rapid adaptation when another change is introduced. So he's not a CE man, he's a PE man: Punctuated Equilibrium.

Inconsistency 2: Wikipedia vs meme theory

If memes exist, then fundamentalism is a family of memes, ocurring in a number of religions. If we take the standpoint that Darwinian evolution exists, then in fundamentalists we have a crowd that holds a falsity to be true. If the crowd can hold a falsity to be true then a truly open-edit policy should result in the democratic "truth" being an actual falsehood.

Furthermore, all other evolution is divergent -- how does the author feel that he can turn this on his head and create a convergent evolution? No, evolution adapts to an environment, and Wikipedia's environment is people, not truth.

Not one to miss a dig at Dawkins, me, so I'll finish by saying I find it quite funny the number of people who've been convinced by Dawkins' words, but internally reject his science as the tripe it is.

HAL.

Resumee ...

... Thus spoke the creator: "Truth will triumph. It always does. However, I figure truth is a variable, so we're right back where we started from."

* Galloway Gallegher, in "The Proud Robot" by Lewis Padgett (Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore)

found finally at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Truth [wikiquote.org]

CC.

FYI: "A writer who seems to have fallen into obscurity these days is Henry Kuttner. He died young and his reputation has been eclipsed by the writers who came after him. But both on his own and in collaboration with his wife C. L. Moore he produced some of the funniest stories I have ever read. Some have been collected -- though long out of print Robots Have No Tails occasionally surfaces in second hand bookshops. Make it your business to seek it out. It contains all the stories about Galloway Gallagher, a man whose subconscious is a brilliant scientist. When he is sober he is just an ordinary person, but when roaring drunk his subconscious takes over and makes the most incredible inventions. The stories concern the efforts of a hungover and very repentant Gallagher trying to figure out just what he's built this time. Why, for example, could he possibly have built a robot with a transparent body? And having done that, why did he make it so vain that all it wants to do is stand in front of a mirror watching its cogs go round? To find the answer to that conundrum, read The Proud Robot." (c.f [paradise.net.nz])

"Show Me" not met

Evolution has only demonstrated minor incremental changes under "live" observation. It would help the cause if something complex walked out of a test-tube. True, evolution is too slow for that, but there's nothing like demonstrating a process from cradle-to-grave if you really want to convince people.

binary people

People aren't too bright in general. Questions that can't be answered with a 'yes' or 'no', up or down, good or bad ... such questions befuddle people. The great mass of people are binary beings. One or zero. The concept of evolution offers them no benefit and may well cause them a headache. There are institutions- religion, military and prison which serve to make decisions easier for these people.

I used to rent rooms to college students. All through the house I installed dimmer switches for the lights. I find that I need different amounts of light at different times and in different situations. The students however, one and all, were uncomfortable with anything other than on or off. Even intelligent people are often uncomfortable with anything involving shades of grey. No political candidate is going to say "I will evaluate all sides of the issue and get the best advice I can, and then I'll respond with reasonable speed and caution." Can you imagine Schwarzenegger or Reagan or Bush making a statement like that? Only Carter- and people still despise him for it.

I would guess that Slashdotters live and work among more intelligent people. You may have little if any exposure to the masses in the USA such as you find in small towns in Arkansas, South Dakota or Missouri. You probably have even less exposure to people in Latin America, rural China, or equatorial Africa. You and everyone you know, are among the top 1% of intelligent/aware people in the world.

The examples in Rob's essay all involve more evolved people. Few of the masses I speak of frequent the 'wisdom of crowds' circles that he mentioned. Those wise people are among the elite- yes even the idle movie-goers who need a review before going to the theater. The simple act of going to a theater, or participating in a public spirited group activity expands their awareness and distinguishes them from the masses. These people weigh and consider many factors before making a decision, even a movie choice. While it is good that they are able to do this, it is unfortunate that they sometimes weigh the wrong decisions. For example they may consider carefully their bet on the World Series game and not spend much time considering the upcoming election issues or whether they are drinking too many soft drinks.

As we have seen with the economy, I think there is an increasing gap between the intelligence of the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. Even as Slashdot readers enthusiastically feed off ideas like Rob's, the ignorant are more deeply entrenched in their superstitions. Science & nutrition allow some of us to be smarter than our genes would predict while the human law of survival-of-the-least-fit drags the average IQ even lower than that of the last century.

Wikipedia vs. God?

I cannot comment on the other areas of comparison from this article, but how is Wikipedia an analogy for Darwinism? Wikipedia is the result of a creator who, along with a team of others, regulate the beast. If Wikipedia started out by accident with absolutely no help from the outside, then I would agree with the article. But, if anything, such analogies give credence to a Creationist viewpoint more than Darwinian. Of course, if you don't believe in a God, then it can't point to any such thing. But the least we must admit is that the analogy fails on so many points that comparing it to any aspect of Darwinism is a stretch to say the least.

Re:Yeah, it's counterintuitive...

Instead it is going to be a never-ending battle [...]

Simple solution: Quarantaine infected lifeforms until their infection ends by either dying or outliving it. Relatives and the like must be isolated enough to not be exposed to said infection.

Re:So go and use evolution to program computers!

How do you think Windows ME was written?

Re:Darwin's evolution != other evolution

I don't know where you got the idea that evolution is completely random. In fact, if you take a look at natural selection, the goal is clear. Survival.

Most organisms have a way to introduce diversity in the gene pool. This is due to a variety of factors, but diversity also provides a strong defense against many risks. This mechanism make it possible for a astronomical number of combinations of genes, defining how the ultimate organism behaves. This allows refinement of existing creatures. Errors in this mechanism can have a huge effect on the organism, some may be debilitating, some may be advantages.

In fact, it is the same with the other examples you described. Take a totally not-so-random idea, the 3-wheeled automobile for example. Have you seen any 3-wheeled Reliant Robins around lately? No because building a 3 wheeled car didn't have the appeal for that idea (and product) to survive.

Good ideas originally intended as a stopgap measure often survive well after when it was designed for. Bad ides designed to last often don't. Some ideas survive, some ideas don't. It doesn't matter if it was designed or not.

Re:Darwin's evolution != other evolution

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there is no such thing as "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" but rather "Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection" [wikipedia.org]

From what I understand, evolution is a scientific hypothesis and the Theory of Natural Selection supports it.

Re:Darwin's evolution != other evolution

Err... who used the phrase first, Car Manufacturers? Computer Manufacturers? no it was Darwin by a centurary or two. So I think, just may be, the other uses of the term evolution came from Darwin

Re:So go and use evolution to program computers!

Disregarding your incorrect assertion that Darwin's theory says "meaningful information emerges from randomness", have you stopped to think about the timescales involved? We are talkng about BILLIONS of years vs 50 years of computer programming. Invent a computer that can last for a billion years, switch it on and let cosmic rays change its memory state occaisionally, build in some "selection" mechanism that retains viable bit patterns and sit back...

Darwin's theory of natural selection

Are you kidding me? Calling Darwin's theory a theory of random mutation show how little you understand of it, because you emphasize the wrong half of his theory. There's basically two parts about Darwin's theory: (1) mutation and (2) selection. Most people consider the first one as most important, but nothing could be further from the truth than that. It's SELECTION that is the keyword here. The mutation part is merely the "fuel" that feeds the selection "engine". In fact, the mutation doesn't even need to be random at all. Let me say that again:

The mutation in Darwin's theory does NOT have to be random!

Although random mutation is perhaps the most effective way compared to its complexity. It surely is the most simple way for nature to "implement" it. And most of the time it results in very good "fuel". About your example: although the mutations are made by intelligent designers, some designs are rejected and some accepted (to be built further upon). The mutations are not random, but the selection is still in place. That's good enough.

So if you don't want to call Darwin's theory a theory of evolution, call it a THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION instead.

Keep in mind: you do not need DNA, big gene pools, parallel mutations, sexual mutations, ... to have a Darwinian evolution at work. It doesn't have to reflect the biological method of evolution at all. At its core you only need (1) mutation (2) selection. Once you have that, you have Darwinian evolution. I believe it was Richard Dawkins who coined the term MEME to apply Darwin's theory to cultural evolution! Though it is has entirely different mechanism than biological evolution, it still consists of mutation and selection. Not all variants work equally well though: sexual mutation seem to work better than asexual mutations , cultural evolution is much faster than biological evolution, because the latter can only pass information between generations what is very slow. The evolution of mankind in the last few thousands of years are mostly cultural driven.

Re:So go and use evolution to program computers!

Wow. That's incredible. You sound like the guy wondering where his life-forms are in his peanut butter.

Evolution is a cumulative construction derived from the most successful, or least harmful, traits of the progenitors. Single-celled lifeforms had offspring that vary slightly. If those new offspring are even slightly more successful than their counterparts (who are also varied, but differently), then their traits go through to the next generation, as they reproduce more successfully. Repeat for a few billion years, and you end up with us. It's not difficult to understand.

Evolution is nothing BUT tremendous labour. It didn't happen overnight. A chimp didn't give birth to a walking, talking, human being any more than an amoeba produced an allosaur.

We've demonstrated in the lab that a species can seperate and cease to be able to inter-breed, based solely on thier environment changing. The same species of fruit fly, split into two groups, one fed on starch and the other glucose, after many generations become two different species. They can't breed together, they both act and look differently.

So to sum up, it's not difficult. I grasped the concept when I was a kid.

Not flame bait

Definitely not intended as flame bait -- just an observation of how evolution doesn't seem to work when applied to computers. Even "genetic algorithms" are not evolution in the strict Darwinian sense, because people intentionally design algorithms and then let them compete. For this to be truly genetic, the algorithms themselves would have to evolve.

Re:That is because evolution only works...

This is simply begging the question, since the theory of evolution says that "living things" come from non-living, inorganic matter.

Re:So go and use evolution to program computers!

Genetic algorithms are designed and implemented by intelligent programmers who intend to apply them to a given problem, and then allowed to compete. The name is misleading since they do not evolve using the mechanism of evolution (random mutation), although once they are viable and working they compete with natural selection.

Re:It's simple...

>and why can't lemmings fly by now
Probably because it's an urban legend that they throw themselves over cliffs.
As for water->air. I would imagine that some fish found they liked taste of some animal that hung around on the waters edge and over generations managed to find a way to process oxygen in their gills 'au natural' as opposed to from the water. Eventually they got good enough to spend more time in the air than in the water and the gills mutated into something like lungs.

Re:So go and use evolution to program computers!

If Darwin's theory of evolution was correct, which says that meaningful information emerges from randomness, we would turn on our computers, fill the memory with random bytes, and watch programs emerge by changing bytes at random

We do. Its called Genetic Programming [wikipedia.org]. Its not the typical way to program, but it can be useful in situations where you have an optimization problem that you'd like solved without needing to involve the program's designer in the annoying grut work of manually tuning the program to do it.

Does this mean you just proved evolution correct to your own satisfaction? Good job! Go tell the others. :-)

Re:Yeah, it's counterintuitive...

I've also seen lots of scientists who talk about "genes" and the "gene for feature x" and "gene for feature y" as if each gene works in isolation to produce a single feature-- I think it's pretty clear that some genes contribute to a large series of features in combination with many other genes such that the effect of a single gene may not be as simple as turning on or off a single "feature." I don't seem to hear things like "gene G contributes to features X, Y and Z, in conjunction with gene D (with feature X), gene E (with feature Y) and genes H and J (with feature Z), though it seems likely that such complicated relationships exist.