A fatal flaw for the notion of natural process evolution is that it has no way to explain the abstract. In a world of the strictly natural, what are we to make of, say, love?<\/p>\n
At the pro-evolution site, Panda’s Thumb, we see a post titled, Evolution of altruistic cooperation and communication in robot societies<\/em><\/a>. The author states,<\/p>\n Discovery<\/span> Magazine reports on a continuation of experiments involving evolvable robots, communication and concepts such as altruistic cooperation and lying.<\/p>\n By the 50th<\/sup> generation, the robots had learned to communicate\u2014lighting up, in three out of four colonies, to alert the others when they\u2019d found food or poison. The fourth colony sometimes evolved \u201ccheater\u201d robots instead, which would light up to tell the others that the poison was food, while they themselves rolled over to the food source and chowed down without emitting so much as a blink.<\/p>\n Some robots, though, were veritable heroes. They signaled danger and died to save other robots. \u201cSometimes,\u201d Floreano<\/a> says, \u201cyou see that in nature\u2014an animal that emits a cry when it sees a predator; it gets eaten, and the others get away\u2014but I never expected to see this in robots.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Fascinating how simple processes of variation and selection can explain the evolution of altruism, cooperation as well as cheating. What has ID done recently that increases our understanding of how cooperation, cheating and altruism arose?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n