[mrguyorama]

Have you actually seen the results of things made with evolutionary algorithms? They ALWAYS produce "what the fuck, how could this be good" outcomes. From antenna that look like scifi props, to a computational system that somehow requires a supposedly unconnected transistor to be activated, evolutionary systems always find their way to a goal in an unimaginable fashion, because "random" mutations are basically the direct opposite of engineering something, so why does everyone always expect the outcome to look engineered?

Evolution producing a complicated, half non-working, incomprehensible, "everything interacts with everything else in a chaotic and unpredictable to us way", is the EXPECTED outcome.

It's similar to how many big programming projects become spaghetti messes of half integrations and barely functional parts hooked together half-hazardly where every feature relies on a bit of code nobody understands. It's an "iterate on the stuff that works" process, except the machinery inside a cell is way more effective and tolerant of such a regime than our stupidly strict programming languages and computers.

[matthewdgreen]

Well, that is true. But presumably selection pressure —- namely, the need for things to work reliably and in an organized fashion —- imposes structure on systems that parallels the kind of organization that engineers use to make complicated systems work reliably. There’s a reason that complex organisms concentrate specific functions into organs with recognizable interfaces rather than scattering those cells widely throughout the body, in the same way that a human-engineered mechanism is usually constructed from parts. The fact that this allows for organ transplants isn’t really by design, but it’s a convenient outcome.