Switch the scenario around: if evolution never produced interesting new proteins (anymore, after time T), would that be evidence that there are no other interesting proteins than what evolution produced?
Yes.
That would be evidence that the supply of interesting proteins had been exhausted, just as computer performance at tic-tac-toe and checkers has stopped improving. I don’t see where you’re coming from here.
Because evolution can’t get stuck in the domain of attraction of a local optimum? It always finds any good points?
Edit to add: Intelligent humans can quickly refactor their programs out of poor regions of designspace. Evolution must grope within its neighborhood.
2nd Edit: How about this argument:
“Evolution has stopped producing interesting new ways of flying; therefore, there are probably no other interesting ways of accomplishing flight, since after all, if there were a good way of doing it, evolution would find it.”
Point mutations aren’t the only way for new things to be produced. You can also recombine large chunks and domains together from multiple previous genes.
Hell, there are even examples of genes evolving via a frame-shift that knocks the 3-base frame of a gene off by one producing a gobbeldygook protein that selection then acts upon...
Yes, we can be definitely confident that there are more interesting proteins in the vicinity because of continuing production. We have less evidence about more distant extrapolations, although they could exist too.
It’s just that, from the context, you seemed to be making a claim about evolution’s ability to find all cool proteins, rather than just the ones within organisms’ local search neighborhood (which would thus be within evolution’s reach).
Hence why you appeared, from my reading, to be making the common mistake of attributing intelligence (and global search capabilities) to evolution, which it definitely does not have.
This insinuation was compounded by your comparison to human-intelligence-designed game algorithms, further making it sound like you attributed excessive search capability to evolution.
(And I’m a little scared, to be honest, that the linked comment got several upvotes.)
If you actually recognize the different search capabilities of evolution version more intelligent algorithms, I suggest you retract, or significantly revise, the linked comment.
Yes.
That would be evidence that the supply of interesting proteins had been exhausted, just as computer performance at tic-tac-toe and checkers has stopped improving. I don’t see where you’re coming from here.
Because evolution can’t get stuck in the domain of attraction of a local optimum? It always finds any good points?
Edit to add: Intelligent humans can quickly refactor their programs out of poor regions of designspace. Evolution must grope within its neighborhood.
2nd Edit: How about this argument:
“Evolution has stopped producing interesting new ways of flying; therefore, there are probably no other interesting ways of accomplishing flight, since after all, if there were a good way of doing it, evolution would find it.”
Point mutations aren’t the only way for new things to be produced. You can also recombine large chunks and domains together from multiple previous genes.
Hell, there are even examples of genes evolving via a frame-shift that knocks the 3-base frame of a gene off by one producing a gobbeldygook protein that selection then acts upon...
Carl wasn’t commenting on whether it would be very strong evidence but whether it would be evidence.
Yes, we can be definitely confident that there are more interesting proteins in the vicinity because of continuing production. We have less evidence about more distant extrapolations, although they could exist too.
That makes a lot more sense.
It’s just that, from the context, you seemed to be making a claim about evolution’s ability to find all cool proteins, rather than just the ones within organisms’ local search neighborhood (which would thus be within evolution’s reach).
Hence why you appeared, from my reading, to be making the common mistake of attributing intelligence (and global search capabilities) to evolution, which it definitely does not have.
This insinuation was compounded by your comparison to human-intelligence-designed game algorithms, further making it sound like you attributed excessive search capability to evolution.
(And I’m a little scared, to be honest, that the linked comment got several upvotes.)
If you actually recognize the different search capabilities of evolution version more intelligent algorithms, I suggest you retract, or significantly revise, the linked comment.