This is a real sign on I-75 in Georgia.
1. In 2010, Google AdWords will announce a procedure for “hearings and fair trials” for banned advertisers. This will enable them to play “Good Cop-Bad Cop” with you if your accounts get shut down.
2. Twitter will get sold to a larger company for less than the $500 million they turned down from Facebook in 2009.
3. The next rage in pay per click is cookie-ing visitors on your site and then having targeted contextual ads “stalk your prospects” on other sites as they surf the Internet. Jonathan Mizel will cover this extensively in a January 29 teleseminar.
4. By 2014 the newspaper will be drastically different than it is now. Most local papers will have vanished; large pubs will consolidate down to just a few like the New York Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. Sorry, but there’s no need for 200 different newspapers to all be running the same stories from the wires; it’s duplicate content. Meanwhile a minority of high-traffic bloggers will be identified as doing better research with better reporting and less bias than the traditional media.
5. The music industry is headed in the same direction. The bands that succeed during the next 10 years will be the ones who figure out how to connect directly to their audience via social media and direct marketing. Recently I had a conversation with a recording artist whose advance for making a CD has shriveled from $50K+ down to $15K now, because piracy and digital distribution are shrinking the pie. He can’t depend on them to bring him an audience anymore. (Does that sound at all familiar?) Neil Peart of Rush said essentially the same thing, reporting they want to do an album in 2010 but the record company won’t pay for it. The band is now in search of some other mechanism. I predict that membership and continuity models are the future of the music industry.
6. There will always be demand for excellent content, regardless of what happens to TV networks, record companies, etc. Case in point: DVD and iTunes sales of TV series like “24” and “Lost” are strong, because those shows are superbly produced. I bought the first four seasons of 24, myself. The worst place to be in media is in the “expensive bureaucratic mediocre middle.”
"What should I do next to grow my business this year?" Take my 2-minute quiz and I'll show you where you'll get the most bang for your buck.
7. I gave away some Amazon Kindles for Christmas this year, and electronic books are most definitely on the rise. Electronic readers are awesome, they’ll become the norm, and the future is not bright for traditional printing and publishing models. However… excellent magazines and books will NEVER disappear. Ever.
8. The traditional HTML website site hand-crafted by an HTML editor and uploaded via FTP is fast becoming a relic, replaced by Content Management Systems and platforms like WordPress and Joomla.
9. There is a small, vocal minority of people that insist that in biology, evolution is entirely purposeless and random. This crowd dominates the current academic scene and cooks up anti-scientific theories like “Junk DNA.” My professional experience in our fast-evolving, “darwinian” online world tells me, evolution is supremely intelligent, NOT random. The intellectual Berlin Wall of 19th century Darwinism will crack in 2013. A 21st century version of evolution is coming, one that doesn’t sneer at religion. I blogged about this last week.
10. Wikipedia will silence its critics. Obviously it’s immensely practical and it’s worked, having entirely replaced the traditional encyclopedia. However, vandalism is a constant problem for some categories. Wikipedia has always had a reputation for smearing controversial people and topics. But they’re cleaning up, and for the most part doing an excellent job. I made a donation for the first time the other day and I think Wikipedia has made a huge contribution to the speed of getting research done. Nothing has done more for bringing the Open Source movement to the masses.
Happy New Year, and here’s to you in your mission to advance in your own corner of the world during this digital decade.
Perry Marshall
What do YOU predict? Post your thoughts in the comment box below…
Share This Post
About the Author
Perry Marshall has launched two revolutions in sales and marketing. In Pay-Per-Click advertising, he pioneered best practices and wrote the world's best selling book on Google advertising. And he's driven the 80/20 Principle deeper than any other author, creating a new movement in business.
He is referenced across the Internet and by Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, INC and Forbes Magazine.
183 Comments on “10 Predictions for 2010-2019”
Perry, this is a great post and right on target. You actually were the reason I began my journey in affiliate marketing and I will be forever grateful.
You’re right, we are in and moving into a new and challenging decade for sure. Times are a changin:-) but opportunities will always abound.
Many thanks!
Welcome aboard, glad to meet ya!
I agree that Twitter is likely to be bought by a large media company. Frankly, I think that will allow the concept to grow due to the influx of new money and new ideas. Its relative position to Facebook will also be positively impacted by this move.
Insofar as content is concerned, the desire for information is insatiable. The more we get the more we want. What is changing is our attention span, which is growing ever shorter. So content,in general, will continue to migrate toward the visual side while written content moves toward Twitter-type bites.
vey good
thanks for your usefull post,i allready bookmarked your blog and will come back for read future post
keep share
Willkommen im Jahr 2019.
I was here :)
Perry writes:
“This crowd dominates the current academic scene and cooks up anti-scientific theories like “Junk DNA.” My professional experience in our fast-evolving, “darwinian” online world tells me, evolution is supremely intelligent, NOT random. ”
So, the “theory” of ‘junkDNA’ is “anti-scientific”? And your non-biology related experience tells you evolution is “supremely intellignet” and not “random”?
Interesting. I have to wonder if you understand what ‘random’ means in evolution, and I also have to wonder if you understand how the phrase ‘junkDNA’ came about and if you truly believe what you wrote on your blog about this loss of 30 years of research based on the notion.
If you DO believe that, then I submit that all ogf your internet expertise si wasted, for a simple literature search would have shown you that, in fact, it was ‘darwinnists’ who had DISCOVERED function in some junkDNA as long ago as 1975 (even earlier, if we do not constrain our searches to the phrase ‘junkDNA’ which was not coined until 1972).
Also, regarding junkDNA, I have to wonder how a critter can survive with 3 million bps of ‘junkDNA’ removed if it is all functional:
Mice do fine without ‘junk DNA’
Deleting non-coding regions from the genome has no apparent effect.
“Mice born without large portions of their ‘junk DNA’ seem to survive normally…. The team created mice with more than a million base pairs of non-coding DNA missing – equivalent to about 1% of their genome. The animals’ organs looked perfectly normal. And of more than 100 tests done on the mice tissues to assess gene activity, only two showed changes. The results are reported in this week’s Nature2.
The group has now created mice missing three million base pairs. “We can see no effect in them,” Rubin says. ”
Hmmmm… Let me guess – it is all that intelligence that allows this to happen.
Your computer’s operating system has files that it has never used. You can delete them and never in the lifetime of your computer will they affect the use of your computer. Are they junk?
The mouse genome has genes that are turned off, but which are activated in other organisms on the evolutionary tree. Are those genes junk?
This is a wonderful article. It provides valuable information. Keep it up.
I’ve always loved your products and content, but I now like you even more after seeing you mention Neil Peart and Rush.
I know there are plenty of people who don’t like their style, but between their phenomenal musicianship along with his amazing lyrics (and overall philosophy to be honest) they are at the top of my list.
Just wanted to quickly add an off-topic and irrelevant reply – needed a break from thinking and working for a few minutes.
Scott
You might like this article: http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/guru-smacks/
Thanks for taking the time to point me to that post – great content as always, but love to read about “the professor on the drum kit” as well!
I’ve had some of the same experiences as well – I wrote “corporate marketing doubletalk” very well for many years, and it was tough to hear any suggestions about my “babies.”
Tough to grow with that mindset though, glad I finally got over it (at least mostly!)
Thanks again.
Scott
Perry,
You wrote:
“If chaotic systems don’t create new information then random mutation can’t create new information either because random mutation is just chaos. (Random mutation is acutally worse than chaotic systems like snowflakes because RM has no rules at all. Snowflakes at least have some rules.)”
Randomness is not chaos because, as you say, chaos still follows some rules and thus limits the possible outcomes.
Randomness is not limited by any rules and thus every possibility is an option. Add Natural Selection and you have the conditions to create the huge diversity of life we have on this planet.
But Random Mutations alone is not evolution. Here you´re doing it again. You leave Natural Selection out of the equation.
Natural selection is exactly that: An algorithm!
Random Mutations + Natural Selection is not random at all. It specifically favors those mutations that have the best chances of survival.
Random Mutations alone = too simple.
Random Mutations + Natural Selection = as simple as possible.
But I understand what you want. You want the algorithm to be responsible for the mutations.
The problem with your snowflakes is that snowflakes don’t reproduce. They are the end result of a chaotic process and in order to create another snowflake, the whole process has to repeat. In evolution this is not necessary.
I just thought about something. You know what’s so interesting? The cause of the mutations is completely irrelevant!
You too agree that natural selection is really happening. You too agree that there are good mutations and bad mutations. Natural Selection will favor the good ones anyway.
So the cause of the mutations is irrelevant because either way, natural selection will favor the good ones.
Just something to think about. :)
“The cause of mutations is completely irrelevant!”
I could hardly think of a more anti-scientific statement.
Maybe people like James Shapiro shouldn’t do research. Maybe he should just wait tables instead.
(I have yet to see any evidence that you have read a single word he’s written. Peter, did you read his paper?)
Natural Selection is necessary but not sufficient. Why? Because the tiniest micro-organism has 500,000 letters in its genetic code. That means if, as you say, “Every possibility is an option” then there are 4^500,000 possibilities that Natural Selection has to sort through. That is 10^200,000. Which is the biggest number that most of us have ever even contemplated. There are only 10^80 particles in the universe. Googol is 10^100. As Shapiro says, there is not enough time in the history of the universe for even the smallest micro-organism to evolve through RM+Natural Selection alone.
Peter, the paper you gave me this morning describes systematic processes not randomness. I’m still waiting for evidence that supports the Random Mutation theory. Show me a paper that DEMONSTRATES that random mutations add new features to an organism. All you need is one.
I did. In that article it’s shown. If you don’t want to read what it says,. then it’s just too bad.
You said that you agree that chaos doesn’t create new features while that used to be one of your main points in proving things are algorithmic.
In science, if you can use a theory to predict what’s going to happen, you can be pretty sure that the theory is correct. The more often a theory predicts somethings correctly, the more certainty there is of its correctness.
The math behind random mutations is correct as has been proven by many simulations on computers. (go search for it yourself online.)
Einsteins theory of relativity is mathematically correct. Yet, only after some predictions it made were observed in nature, it was accepted to be correct.
Why don’t you prove that your theory is correct instead of asking others to proof that evolution is correct? Most scientists say that Darwin was right and the ones that do research always end up finding exactly what Darwin’s theory predicts.
They´re pretty much doing what you´re asking for. When it doesn’t support your theory, you all the sudden focus on their semantics to prove them wrong.
Do this: Study how conspiricy theories develop and are sustained. Then look at how you´re defending your theory. You’ll find that it’s very similar.
Example: Complexity. Consipiracies always require complex explanations. Your theory does too.
Other example: Selective evidence gathering and ignoring what doesn’t suport your theory.
I’m not against you Perry. I actually like you, which is why I keep discussing this with you. But I have no hopes of you changing your opinion on this subject. But thanks to this discussion I learned some new things. This is why I like these kinds of discussions.
Not going to continue from here on. Taking too much time :)
Cheers,
Peter
It’s been nice talking to you, Peter.
The process that creates snowflakes is deterministic.
Evolution is a process. You call it a chaotic process. That means you call Evolution deterministic.
Maybe you meant to say that it is not predictable in stead of not deterministic.
And I know, something not being predictable does not necessarily mean it’s random.
But chaotic systems don’t create new information. Evolution does.
Random mutations are the most simple way to introduce new information. I agree in most cases it will be useless information which will be ignored (or better said: Naturally not selected.)
From your engineering background you should know that the simplest explanation usually the correct one is.
Peter,
I agree with you that chaotic systems don’t create new information.
If chaotic systems don’t create new information then random mutation can’t create new information either because random mutation is just chaos. (Random mutation is acutally worse than chaotic systems like snowflakes because RM has no rules at all. Snowflakes at least have some rules.)
When I say the process is not deterministic, I am speaking from the point of view of the organism. The organism cannot control its environment. The mutation algorithm itself *could* be completely deterministic but initial conditions will change the outcome unpredictably. That’s why out of 12 populations, 1 evolved and 11 didn’t.
From the standpoint of, literally, God, the whole process might be entirely deterministic. But from the standpoint of a limited human observer, the initial conditions and circumstances of the environment are not predictable and the situation as a whole is not deterministic. In that sense I could accept your statement “Maybe you meant to say that it is not predictable in stead of not deterministic.” For the sake of this discussion I’m willing to go with that.
Yes, a simple explanation is always preferred. Einstein said, “As simple as possible and no simpler.” RM is too simple. It doesn’t account for what DNA actually does. As you said it cannot create new information. RM only degrades information. The simplest explanation that fits the data, then, is that mutation is driven by an algorithm.
if you disagree, then show me an example of successful evolution that doesn’t use an algorithm or intelligence somewhere.
The process that creates snowflakes is deterministic.
Evolution is also a process. Not the end result like a snowflake is.
Perry,
Saying it’s not deterministic breaks your logic. If you want to use chaos theory to explain the cause of the mutation you can’t say it’s not deterministic.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#cite_note-prov-53
“Chaos theory is an area of inquiry in mathematics, physics, and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.”
I like this because chaos theory doesn’t explain where new abilities come from. It can make things bigger or more spread out or more powerful or etc. etc. etc. But you’ll always be dealing with the same thing in one form or another. It doesn’t “create” new information, it just changes form, intensity and location. That’s the weather indeed.
So you believe it’s chaos theory and then you believe evolution IS deterministic, or you believe it IS NOT deterministic and evolution is not chaotic. You can’t mix these 2 to explain the initial mutation that causes a new property.
Are snowflakes deterministic?
If so, precisely in what sense?
Answer carefully.
Well Perry, you asked for something more scientific, so here it is:
Article: (easier to read)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
The scientific version: (linked to from the article as well.)
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899
Excellent article. Thank you for posting it. This is exactly the sort of thing I’ve been asking for.
Now I want you to notice: Both articles ASSUME that the path to the new capability was random. In fact the Journal article makes the following statement at the beginning: “selection requires heritable variation generated by random mutation…”
BUT…. PETER, WHERE DO THE AUTHORS EVER *DEMONSTRATE* IT?
Both these articles claim the source of change is randomness, but do you see any place where they demonstrate it?
Note this from the journal article:
“Previous analyses of this experiment have shown numerous examples of parallel phenotypic and genetic evolution. All twelve populations underwent rapid improvement in fitness that decelerated over time (2, 3, 22, 23). All evolved higher maximum growth rates on glucose, shorter lag phases upon transfer into fresh medium, reduced peak population densities, and larger average cell sizes relative to their ancestor (22–26). Ten populations evolved increased DNA supercoiling (27), and those populations examined to date show parallel changes in global gene-expression profiles (4, 28, 29). At least three genes have substitutions in all 12 populations (30, 31), and several others have substitutions in many populations (27–30), even though most loci harbor no substitutions in any of them (32). At the same time, there has also been some divergence between populations…”
Parallel changes: This is exactly what we would expect if evolution were algorithmic. It’s exactly the way Google ads evolve: “rapid improvement in fitness that decelerated over time.” If two different people were independently evolving Google ads, we would expect them both to try some of the same ideas.
Notice the following statements from the journal article (Emphasis mine):
“each population tried every typical one-step mutation many times. It must be difficult, therefore, to evolve the Cit+ phenotype, despite the ecological opportunity.”
“Our results instead support the hypothesis of historical contingency, in which a genetic background arose that had an increased potential to evolve the Cit+ phenotype.”
“A typical mutation rate in E. coli is ?5 × 10?10 per base pair per generation (51). Such a low rate suggests that the final mutation to Cit+ is not a point mutation but instead involves some rarer class of mutation or perhaps multiple mutations. The possibility of multiple mutations is especially relevant, given our evidence that the emergence of Cit+ colonies on MC plates involved events both during the growth of cultures before plating and during prolonged incubation on the plates.”
“One or more earlier mutations potentiated the evolution of this function by increasing the mutation rate to Cit+, although even the elevated rate is much lower than a typical mutation rate.
“A second possibility is that the physical production of the mutation that produced the Cit+ phenotype requires some previous mutation that allows the final sequence to be generated. For example, the insertion of a mobile genetic element creates new sequences at its junctures, and one of these new sequences might then undergo a mutation that generates a final sequence that could not have occurred without the insertion.”
“Mobile genetic element” and “insertion” – that’s Shapiro’s language. This is Cellular Genetic Engineering. Random mutation does not produce mobile genetic elements (the equivalent of re-arranging sentences in a paragraph – that’s not random).
“more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been coopted for citrate transport under oxic conditions. This transporter may previously have transported citrate under anoxic conditions (43) or, alternatively, it may have transported another substrate in the presence of oxygen. The evolved changes might involve gene regulation, protein structure, or both (61).”
Peter, at the beginning of this paper they assert that mutations are generated randomly and then they go on to describe processes like insertion, transposition, substitution and mobile genetic elements, all of which are already known to NOT be random.
I have been online discussing these exact issues for 5 years – I’ve repeatedly asked for papers that prove that evolution is random. And what I get back every single time is unsupported statements that is random…. and then when you read the reports of the actual research they describe non-random stepwise processes. This is no exception.
The actual content of this paper completely supports my thesis. This is a CLASSIC example of Cellular Genetic Engineering! Shapiro describes *exactly* this type of adaptation in his paper. See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf. Note what he says about randomness.
Perry
Well, if only one of 12 populations that live in the exact same circumstances, get to have that one advantage that the other 11 populations didn’t get, you have a problem with your algorithmic approach.
If it was purely algorithmic then all 12 populations should develop in the exact same way. Which they do obviously in many ways. But try to explain what the reason is that 1 population developed a unique ability that the other 11 didn’t develop.
What other reason than chance can it be? Remember, all 12 populations started with the exact same parent. The initial “program” was the same for all. All 12 populations live in the exact same circumstances. The algorithm should produce the exact same result in all 12 populations.
Perhaps you believe that that one population prayed more than the others. :)
Explain Perry, why did only 1 of those 12 populations gain that special ability? Why not all of them?
Excellent question!!!
Answer: Because it’s not deterministic. It’s just like fingerprints. Your fingerprints are generated by an algorithm – there is very definitely an obvious pattern and a program in the human that generates the highly recognizable fingerprint pattern. But every person’s fingerprints are different (even identical twins) because the initial conditions are slightly different. This is well known in chaos theory: A fractal is recognizable anywhere – the mandelbrot set is famous – but if you change the initial conditions by .0000000000001 the pattern shifts unpredictably. It’s the butterfly effect.
Chaos is totally unpredictable in terms of exact specifics but in generalities the patterns are the same over and over again. Yes, there is an ELEMENT of randomness, but randomness is NOT the primary driving force. It is a secondary effect. The primary driving force is a program or set of rules.
This is true of all fractals and chaos examples. You can’t predict when a tornado will happen but you always know what it looks like. No two snowflakes are identical but they all look very similar. The most important thing about a snowflake is not the randomness that makes them different, it’s the crystal structure that makes them all similar. That’s why we call it a snowflake.
Now…. that is only one “layer” of the answer to your question.
The other layer is: I hypothesize that the mutation algorithm is to some degree intelligent. In the same sense that we are striving to achieve “Artificial Intelligence” in technology.
Two intelligent beings never approach things exactly the same way, even if they use the same general process. 12 people write Google ads, but only one comes up with a “super winning ad.”
“Answer: Because it’s not deterministic.”
That explains the “elect”. Now if you ask me to explain it I wouldn’t know where to start. It there in the bible.
This is a side note. I barely follow the twists in all this empirical skullduggery anyway :)
But one thing is certain (credit: Robert Pirsig): all scientific verities has a sell by date. Perry’s looks like its going to score a bulls eye on Mr. Darwin’s. Assumptions are always the weakest links in any theory (or life situation for that matter). I just heard Perry’s Big Mack roar through Darwin’s. :)
Murray, you obviously don’t “get it” about why Perry is the premier marketing consultant and marketer on the internet today. He does go beyond internet marketing.
If all you want is dry internet marketing info, go to the Internet Marketing Center, as they will never stray off-topic.
Funny about the social media like Twitter and Facebook (Facebook is 51% owned by Russian dataminers group who use it for trends modeling)
is …just because they are a great idea, doesn’t mean they have any intrinsic $ value.
But many in business have a “jump on the bandwagon cause everyone else has” mentality, which overvalues technology like Twitter and undervalues morals/religion/character, which ultimately are the backbone of a strong economy.
Which very nicely transistions me to my prediction for 2010:
The Lemmings mentality will continue to exist out there, with most people – over 80% to use Perry’s favorite statistical rule – are still very highly “socially engineered” to respond in emotionally predictable ways.
This is why I think the Tea Baggers movement is a great development, showing some independent thinkers who believe in the Constitution.
But the Wall Street/Political D.C elite, tried to “spin” any opposition to wasting/spending/giving Trillions away in bailouts in 2009 as un-patriotic. Didn’t work.
Luckily their control on the media has been reduced, so some sanity prevails.
But the Lemmings/follow the herd mentality is still a great danger to both Governemnt and e- commerce.
You could see all the “me-too” affiliate programs, adsense arbitrage sites, and content sites go the way of “hard close” insurance salesman of the 80’s. Despised and resisted by the consumer.
I’m encouraged by Google’s move, although having an Adwords / Adsense advertising model is inherently a conflict of interet – although a profitable one for now.
Re. Prediction #9 – I’ve never heard any scientist in the field of Darwinian evolution describe the process as “random”. Quite the reverse in fact, it is specifically “non-random”. This is not a minority view, but represents the majority of the scientific community.
The only people who ever describe Darwinian evolution as random are religious people, usually in an attempt to discredit it.
To call Darwinian evolution “random” is to demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the subject. Anyone who has ever read a book about the subject could tell you this. As such it reaches the level of propaganda.
Predictions #1-8 and #10 are about Internet Marketing. The link in #9 is extremely tenuous, and doesn’t hold up. Is online evolution also “intelligent” and “top-down”? Hardly!
I come to this blog to learn about Internet Marketing. I can visit your other blog if I want religious discourse. Please don’t confuse the two.
Murray,
I did not get my characterization of Darwinism from religious people, I got it from Darwin and his followers, and the dictionary:
Science Dictionary
Darwin (där’win) Pronunciation Key
British naturalist who proposed the theory of evolution based on natural selection (1858). Darwin’s theory, that random variation of traits within an individual species can lead to the development of new species, revolutionized the study of biology.
All you need to do is read a book by Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett to find this randomness assertion bandied about.
This century, Darwin’s randomness theory will be replaced with an algorithmic view of evolution.
Hi Perry
Darwinism (or more specifically neo-Darwinism) explains that random genetic mutations occur, but that the process of Natural Selection is specifically non-random. If you can quote a passage from a book by Dawkins or Dennet that describes the process of Natural Selection as “random”, please go ahead.
In “Climbing Mount Improbable”, Dawkins describes evolution as “the slow, cumulative, one-step-at-a-time, non-random survival of chance variants”. In “The Blind Watchmaker” he describes the misundertanding of Natural Selection as a random process as the most flawed argument against evolution that there is.
In fact, in every one of his books that I’ve read, he deals with this issue and stresses that evolution – specifically natural selection – is a non-random process. See here to hear him explain it himself http://fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Dawkins_The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth#fullprogram.
Examples of non-random survival of random mutations are plentiful. The flu virus is a good example. It mutates pretty rapidly. Some strains don’t survive well in humans and other animals and die out. Others survive well and cause many deaths – last century for example, more people died of flu than died in all wars.
Is this the hand of God, Intelligently Designing flu viruses to get better at killing humans? Or is it random mutations, some of which survive because they compete better than their rivals in the environment?
Murray,
The flu virus did not mutate randomly. It was internal cellular genetic engineering. See http://www.perrymarshall.com/swine-flu-google-ads. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/new-theory-of-evolution/ as well.
Advantageous mutations are absolutely, positively, NOT random in any way shape or form. As a communication engineer I know that no digital code can ever produce improved information by being corrupted. Contrary to popular belief, Natural Selection cannot overcome this problem, either. And nowhere in ANY of the scientific literature is there any empirical evidence that RM does add useful information to the genome – I’ve been asking for 5 years and no one has ever come forward with it.
See http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm. Happy to discuss this on my blog http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog.
To say that CMS systems produce code that is “pure crap” is nonsense.
When properly configured, Joomla and WordPress produce HTML that is indistinguishable from the “hand-crafted” variety, and Joomla in particular has many useful SEO modules that make the process easier, faster and therefore cheaper to manage. All the off-page SEO is the same whether hand-coded or CMS driven.
Are these the words of an “old-school” HTML programmer, by any chance? As Perry says, fast becoming a relic.
Never mind, it’s going to be a waste of time I think. When control of the discussion seems to be more important than the discussion itself it’s the clearest sign it’s going to be a waste of time to continue.
Peter, I asked you to present a specific kind of evidence and you have not provided it. This example you gave is not natural selection and it is most certainly not peer reviewed. I’ll be happy to explain exactly why on the other blog. Also, when you post your comment at the other blog I’ll be happy to link from here to there. But if you wish to go ’round and ’round in circles about this, it’s going to have to happen on my biology blog, not my business blog.
Perry,
How do you include the physical world around living beings into your deliberate mutation theory?
I hope you agree that evolution always tries to evolve living beings into a better version for the world they live in.
That basically means that the physical world was also designed.
But you have shown that the physical world is nothing but patterns created by chaos (randomness).
If randomness creates the physical world (based on the laws of nature of course) and the physical world determines the needs of living beings… then randomness is the origine of the changes within species.
Peter,
First of all in a sense the physical world isn’t just random. It is highly ordered by precise scientific laws. The universe isn’t a random jumble of atoms. It has galaxies and stars and planets. The Big Bang itself is tuned to at least 120 decimal places of precision – see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/big-bang-precisely-planned/. The initial conditions had to be more precise than anything ever designed by humans, just for stars to form. Please read this article and the papers it references.
But in another sense you’re right, matter and energy do not have goals. Living things do.
And you are right, evolution always tries to evolve living beings into a better version.
Notice how purposive your language is. It is not possible to describe living things without using purposeful terms like “tries” and “better.” The language you use to describe living things is fundamentally different than for non-living things. They are fundamentally different. Living things have information and purpose.
You cannot derive purpose from non-purpose. Evolution is not random. There is no scientific support for the notion that it is random either. It is often stated but never, ever demonstrated. As you investigate this you’ll begin to appreciate how hard it is to find such support in the literature.
Peter, you are operating from within a rigid paradigm. I’ve watched this conversation both this time and the last time. I invite you to consider that there is a possibility of purpose in living things which has been very uncomfortable for you. I invite you to consider that living things are just as purposeful as you are. You don’t generate web pages with random letter generators and living things don’t evolve that way either.
I don’t challange purpose. I don’t even challange the origine of purpose. My only interest is in wether or not random mutations can result in improvements. That it can is clear to me and everything you have in your cosmicfingerprints site that tries to prove that random mutations don’t work is full of holes.
Your random mutation generator for example is not proving anything because natural selection is taken out of the equation. Every proof you come up with has a hole.
If you really want to prove that random mutations don’t work, you need to create a random mutation generator with natural selection included.
In your generator every mutation happens one at the time and every mutation sticks no matter what. That’s not how it goes.
Allow multiple mutations at once and allow natural selection to weed out words that aren’t real words, and you may just see a word like “easy” change into “fast” every billion or so times (just throwing a number up here).
That’s Darwinian evolution!
Peter,
Prove it.
Perry,
At first I wanted to write some software myself, but then I figured it’s probably already done, so I did a search. This page has what I wanted to make as well:
http://www.cs.laurentian.ca/badams/evolution/EvolutionApplet102.html
It includes Natural Selection which is what makes evolution work and is very much missing in your random mutation generator.
Please not that the phrase “number of children” in this simulator does not mean children of 2 parents, but it’s more like on a cell level where billions of cells replicate and thus create billions of “children”.
Peter,
I said that if you had peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating that random mutations produce new features you were welcome to post a link here. Otherwise this discussion would need to continue at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com.
This is not what I requested. You are welcome to post this there and I will give you my comments on this at that time.
Hi Perry,
I’ve been following the enormous conversation you’ve stimulated and I refer particularly to your post numbered 79 (You and Chuck).
I normally just observe, but I’m moved to share an e-book that deals with this topic of the converation. I normally offer it for a donation of the reader’s choice, but in light of this conversation I forgo that and offer it unconditionally to all.
I must say I’m still uncomfortable about sharing this, but it actually happened as I described and if you research me you’ll see that I’m not a crusader in this arena.
Here’s the link below to the e-book for everyone who’s interested.
http://www.daviddeane-spread.com/S+7ULV1.1.pdf
I welcome your feedback.
Best wishes,
David
This charged topic is more easily addressed as 3 separate quesions:
1. Is there a “creator”? I suspect that it is logically provable that the answer to this question can never be known with certainty, though I haven’t spent any thought on this.
2. IF there is a “creator,” on what level does it exact its influence? I suspect, though I cannot prove, that IF it exists, it would operate on levels more fundamental than the mundane happenings of — and have better things to do than dabble in the particulars of life development on — our measly little planet. To think otherwise is merely human arrogance, ego, and self-projection at work.
3. IF there is a “creator,” who is it? Again I suspect but cannot prove that IF it exists, it is nothing depicted in any existing human religion.
Chuck
Chuck,
1. The closest thing to a logical proof comes from Gödel’s incompleteness theorem which I describe at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness. It is in principle impossible to have a deductive proof of God because God is not contingent on anything. It is only possible to use induction and inference which is what this formulation does.
We also have 100% inference to the existence of God from information theory. See my video http://perry.fingerprints.s3.amazonaws.com/index.htm or audio/transcript http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/proof
2. Science succeeded in Western Europe (and failed in Rome, Greece, China, Islam and Egypt) because it had a theological support for the idea that God created a universe that could proceed on its own without being tinkered with. This was a distinctly Christian idea. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian for further explanation of this. However as you know Christianity also makes the audacious assertion that God is intimately interested in the mundane details of our lives. But anyway one of the main points I wish to make is that evolution is “pre-loaded” into living things and does not happen by accident. This is a scientific proposition. Most other theories of evolution are not. Darwnism is not scientific because it specifically excludes the possibility of pre-existing order, resorting to randomness instead.
3. You might find this article interesting: Top 10 objections to Christianity & my response to each: http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/top10/ In this article I discuss some of my own personal experience that yes, God is in fact interested in our personal daily existence.
Do all of your blog posts or newsletters get the same attention? Do you intentionally create blog posts and newsletters that give you nothing in return?
No, You don’t.
Natural selection makes those choices.
Your 80/20 rule is in fact a great example of natural selection.
I’m not disagreeing with you about natural selection, and in this instance you’re completely right.
But name one newsletter, blog post, or even successful web page anywhere on Google that was generated by random mutation.
Your predictions are well thought out and nicely articulated. Though, there seems to be a little discrepency: Newspapers will be reduced in number since they are all feeding from the same wire and the redundancy is not needed, but you say content management will rule even though it is so often used as way to “feed” from the same sources as other sites are feeding from. Perhaps in all in how you use it.
And of course I really doubt there is any value is in undoing all the advances brought about by the realization that evolution is not purposefully driven -that is the whole point of the theory.
Content Management is not about sourcing other people’s content, it’s about being able to post your own content with ease.
You’ve put your finger on the core issue. I insist that to say evolution is not purposefully driven is to ignore the elephant in the room. This is a 19th century philosophical bias that is just not supported by modern empirical data. I invite you to read my article http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/new-theory-of-evolution and the papers cited in this article. Especially James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf. Note what Shapiro has to say about “Randomness.”
As soon as the purposeful nature of the evolutionary algorithm is acknowledged, there will be a renaissance in biology and technology, especially Artificial Intelligence.
I predict that sometime this year, I’ll cast off the shackles that the Man places on me very day. I’ll go to a 4 man intensive and sit in Perry Marshall’s office, and personally thank him for the value and freedom he’s given me.
Lookin’ forward to it!
Perry,
This is an interesting article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8435320.stm
Quote from the article:
“This means that this pattern of Darwinian evolution appears to be universally active.”
How do you explain this? Without DNA or RNA there is no programming, so you can’t say this process is engineered. Yet it still works.
It uses the host’s DNA to replicate. John Von Neumann discovered in the 60’s that replication is not possible without a code. From Wikipedia: “To date, all such agents that have been discovered propagate by transmitting a mis-folded protein state; as with viruses the protein itself does not self-replicate on its own, rather it induces existing polypeptides in the host organism to take on the rogue form.”
Viruses do the same thing. I wrote about this in “Swine Flu Virus Mutations and the Evolution of Google Ads” http://www.perrymarshall.com/swine-flu-google-ads/
As I understand it, viruses do the same thing but are programmed to do so. These proteins aren’t programmed as they lack genetic programming.
Another quote of the article:
“Now, this adaptability has moved one level down- to prions and protein folding – and it’s clear that you do not need nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) for the process of evolution.”
Since these proteins are not programmed to do anything, but it happens anyway, it must be more a case of chance than anything else.
How can something that’s not programmed to do anything, actually do something? You can’t say that it (the prions) “induces existing…. etc.” because inducing is a proces with a goal. Since the prions are not programmed they don’t have a goal. It’s just a coincedence.
Random mutations that are beneficial are also coincedental.
This proves pretty much that changes caused by “Darwinian” evolution is something that really does happen.
It can also explain the creation of DNA, which, in my opinion, is just the next step.
Prions use the host’s DNA to replicate. The quote from the article is only partially true. DNA is ESSENTIAL to the process – can’t be done without.
From WIkipedia:
“Prions are hypothesized to infect and propagate by refolding abnormally into a structure which is able to convert normal molecules of the protein into the abnormally structured form. All known prions induce the formation of an amyloid fold, in which the protein polymerises into an aggregate consisting of tightly packed beta sheets. This altered structure is extremely stable and accumulates in infected tissue, causing tissue damage and cell death.[4] This stability means that prions are resistant to denaturation by chemical and physical agents, making disposal and containment of these particles difficult.”
Nowhere do these sources demonstrate that the mutations are random. Nothing being described in the above paragraph is random. The prion clearly obeys rules and it’s algorithmic.
Peter, I am asking you for the 5th or 6th time now: please post a link to one scientific paper that demonstrates that random mutations add functionality to the organism. If you have such a paper you are welcome to post it here at pm.com. If you want to otherwise continue this conversation, please do so at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog.
Perry
Perry,
Since you want so much scientific information, I give you this site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I haven’t read it all because it’s a lot (and I mean really a lot) of information to dig through.
It focusses on common descent explaning that all life is related. Wether or not it proofs that natural selection is what makes the choices is not even that important. It’s a great read either way.
I like natural selection (with random mutations as it’s driving force) simply because it’s what makes most sense. If there’s anything you can get from the bible it is that God does not decide for anybody or anything, but simply created conditions and then let things happen naturally. As I like to say: God helps those that help themselves. This applies to everything and that is what natural selection is all about.
If you read my articles you’ll see I’m 100% fine with Common Descent. I stand by my statement that nowhere in the entire body scientific literature is there proof that random mutations are the driving force for evolution. If you can find a paper on Talkorigins that empirically demonstrates that random mutations produce new features in an organism, let me know.
Viruses have genetic code that tells them what to do. These proteins don’t have this programming.
They replicate without having programming that tells them how to do that. Interesting, isn’t it.
Great list, you never disappoint.
Re: #9, even if new views are proposed, the nay sayers will continue to say nay and the yay sayers will continue to say yay. This is a dispute that will probably never be reconciled simply because we lack the proper perspective to make informed judgments… its like trying to determine what the view looks like from Alpha Centauri when we can never leave a rather small fishbowl sitting behind a stack of books on the coffee table in God’s living room. We can infer certain things from the bits we can glimpse through the glass of that fishbowl, but we can never be 100% sure our basic assumptions are correct. That margin of doubt will always leave room for arguments on both sides. As these things tend to go, I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I rather enjoy the notion that we as a species have a social consciousness, and maybe that consciousness creates our evolution (pun intended) in much the same way as an experimenters thoughts and emotions can alter the results of quantum physics experiments. Does this imply that god is simply the sum total of that mass consciousness? I like to think there is more to it than that, but it’s hard to tell from inside the fishbowl. In the end, it is what it is and life goes on.
Happy 2010!
you are a wise and savvy businessman Perry, I agree with all your predictions, that is if Jesus doesnt come back to judge the earth before the decade ends. ie-book of revelation
God bless you brother, thanks for everything!
Darwinism is like believing that if tornado hits a junkyard … all the pieces in the junkyard will just some how find their way into creating a fully-functioning 747 Passenger Jet – ready to fly. The human body and mind is incredibly more complex don’t you agree?
2 amendments to what you just said:
1) Darwinism takes the junkyard for granted, whereas a real junkyard cannot exist without a substantial amount of sophisticated technology already in place.
2) It assumes the junkyard creates a self-replicating machine (something which humans have yet to accomplish) and that natural selection can make it better. Natural Selection can only kill the failures, it cannot cause the existing organisms to get better.
No it’s not. Just randomly throwing things around doesn’t get you anything new. But you put Perry’s idea in one simple sentence. Great analogy.
Randomly throwing mutations around doesn’t work. Of course it doesn’t! But that’s not what random mutations are.
The mutations are random! The natural selection process is not random!
Thanks for making it very clear where Perry’s logic goes wrong.
Peter,
You’re invited to provide empirical evidence that random mutations (as opposed to transpositions and cellular genetic engineering) add new features to the organism.
Actually, ‘darwinism’ isn’t anything at all like that. You have just written what is known as a strawman.
Darwinism is foolishness.
1) Where are the half-human half monkey men?
2) So a body of water stayed constant over thousands of years so mush could evolve into a fish, which evolved into a creature that crawled onto a beach that stayed constant for thousands of years? Come on!
3) The creature that evolved in water would have had predators that evolved to pursue it, don’t you think!
4) Why didn’t gazelles that’ve spent thousands of years being pursued by Lions and Cheetahs evolve to the point where they could fly or develop glocks to shoot lions and cheetahs?
Darwinism is like tying your mind into a pretzel to avoid the obvious.
1) http://www.greatdreams.com/african-lucy.htm
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
3) Yes they did. Why do you assume that the only way to survive is by having no predators?
4) Gazelles are very well equiped to avoid lions and cheetas. As you said yourself, they’ve been around for thousands of years. They don’t need wings to survive, they have everything they need to survive. Only the weak gazelles get cought by the predators. That’s actually a good thing. The species stays strong because the weak don’t survive.
Perry,
Good work (as usual). My particular interest is your comment about Twitter and observations about social media in general and what you had to say about newspaper publishing. I agree with your observation that the face of Newspaper Publishing will change, but I think that will simply adapt to the web. The internet is simply a new publishing medium. The challenge when publishing is, and always has been, readership. To build readership you need circulation and content (yes, content!)
Every time a new technology is introduced everyone temporarily believes that the rules have changed; “Gee Whiz!” takes over for a while. Then when everyone has embraced it, played with it, and understands how it works; they return to fundamentals; “how is this new technology really going to help?”
When new ways to publish are invented its enough just to wonder at it. Like when colour television arrived; even “I love Lucy” was amazing. However, people soon get used to it; at the cinema computer graphics are no longer enough to compensate for poor acting, poor direction, or an obvious plot.
The technical aspect of publishing (i.e printing presses and later broadcast technology) has reduced dramatically in cost because of the Internet; it’s not that hard to publish on the web (it was hard in the early days because web technicians briefly enjoyed witchdoctor status until now, they are dime-a-dozen).
The hard bit remains content. To publish quality takes resources. Traditional publishers hire teams of journalists, writers, editors, art directors, illustrators, and photographers to build content overnight. Few web publishers do the same.
Social media:
But, there is now a new witchdoctor; welcome the social media on-line marketing guru. It’s an intriguing proposition; people developing on-line relationships, writing to each other, flirting with brands, engaging in on-line dialogue, presumably consummating the relationship with an on-line purchase or two. I think that’s how it works.
This reminds me of the direct marketing/data base marketing revolution (fad?) in the 1980’s where another breed of guru’s swept through the world talking about “building a relationship with your customer.” Personalised letters, response devices, calls to action, and carefully selected fancy printing stocks were all part of the tool kit. It has its place but do any of us really feel like we are having a meaningful relationship with a company because we were the recipient of a personalised letter?
Despite my misgivings I have seen it work (i.e. created sales) but only when we treated it like any other marketing communications and didn’t treat the customer like an idiot “Dear Mr. Wearne, we are writing to you because we really care” yeah sure, care about sales.
The problem with using social networking sites for marketing purposes is that social networking sites only work because people have a genuine social motive for making a contribution. Once there is a commercial motive then the credibility of what is written drops and people are no longer interested. The big lesson from the internet is that people crave integrity; don’t pretend that you are something that you are not.
Back to content:
You can only read discussion sites for so long before you hanker for some well written, well edited, well laid out, on-topic, entertaining content. People don’t have time to sift through a lot of crap to find the pearls.
And the days of relying on contributors to interactively write the content for you are coming to end; internet readers are becoming savvy and are looking for quality not spontaneous regurgitations.
The competition is heating-up: the daily news-rooms of the world are heading on-line. They bring with them content building expertise and brands. This is the way of the future. Newspaper publishers recognise the Internet as just the latest printing technology only better and television broadcasters have always understood the small screen, it’s just taken them a little while to see it “hey guys, it looks like a TV maybe the techs can patch us in”. Yes, there are some new technological bells and whistles in the new media but its still show business and the traditional publishers and broadcasters have pedigree.
Back to us Fred Bloggs and our on-line offerings. If we want readership we will have to start providing regularly updated quality content. If we don’t want readers (of any significant numbers) then why are we bothering?
Pure and applied:
Because I am a B2B marketer I also like to think in terms of the relevance of social media to B2B. I “get” Linked-In, I sort of “get” Face-Book, but I am really struggling with Twitter. Nobody I want to do business with has time to read Tweets or write Tweets. May be it has B2C application, may be I am not thinking hard enough.
However, to draw analogy, back at university we had pure maths and applied maths. Pure maths was explained to us as math’s that has no application in the real world. You can’t use it to model anything, you can’t design bridges with it, can’t build electronic circuits with it, and it cannot be used to solve real world problems. So what is the point to it?
The answer is that all applied math’s started out life as pure maths. Without people playing with pure maths for the hell of it, no applied maths would be developed.
I have taken the same approach with social media. I have no idea how we are going to apply it as a serious marketing tool, but I am going to keep playing with it just in case I find a purpose.
It’s about trying to find application; eventually a solution will emerge. But let’s not forget – content is king.
Keep the topics coming Perry, love your work.
Books aren’t really waterproof either though they can be dried!
May I suggest, as an avid reader of both physical books and Kindle versions, that reading while bathing takes multitasking too far?
Also, after listening to a talk titled “When Religion Met Science Good Things Happened” at my spiritual center this AM, I look forward to retiring the sad old evolution vs creation conflict and hope more of the earth’s people learn to live in peace during this decade.
Perry, thanks for being real. It is somewhat rare for a successful male to be manly enough to believe in #9. You’re in good company though. Let’s hear it for the manly men!!!
Religion,a nuisance,will disappear soner or later.Sorry
Thank you. Great predictions.
I made a donation to Wikipedia as well, I think they’re great.
Happy New Year.
Hi Perry.
I can name several “Change of function” mutations in humans that confer positive benefits under their original conditions of selection without doing any additional research.
Today we call them genetic diseases.
sickle cell anemia – confers protection against malaria parasites.
haemochromatosis – iron sequestration disorder that confers protection against bubonic plague and other lymphocyte infections.
That “beneficial only under a narrow definition” statement IS the definition of beneficial. Benefit and harm are purely dependent on the context (barring death before breeding of course)
Having finished reading the article now. There’s nothing in it that I am unfamiliar with. But I disagree with your conclusions.
Just because a system demonstrates a degree of complexity beyond our ability to fully interpret does not prove it is “deliberate”.
The mechanisms discussed explain activation and inactivation of function.
Related to that is the transfer of genetic information between species (see, the cold virus is good for something)
It also explains duplication of existing function. Up to and including additional sets of functional limbs (for example)
But it does not explain the development of new functionality very well.
To be honest, I can’t think of any mechanism for introducing significant new functionality that I would consider reasonable short of intelligent design, and that just goes to the “and who designed the designer” argument.
Incremental change sure, but not completely new. But then maybe all functionality is incremetnal over a long enough timescale. And we humans do lack a long term perspective.
Roger,
All the examples you give here, I acknowledge wholeheartedly. Yes, deleterious mutations can serve a useful purpose. But they’re dysfunctional and there’s a reason we call them genetic diseases.
I acknowledge the “Who designed the designer” question and I would suggest that if you spend an hour or a day or 10 years thinking about it, you reach an inevitable conclusion that there must be an undesigned designer, an uncaused cause. The question of where the Big Bang came from brings you to pretty much the same place. People like Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas came to similar conclusions 1000+ years ago.
I posit that there are two singularities: The Big Bang and the Origin of Life. The big bang introduced matter, energy, space and time. The Origin of Life introduced information – which is a completely new entity – and creates an entirely new story in the history of the universe. And here we are trying to decode all of it.
“All the examples you give here, I acknowledge wholeheartedly. Yes, deleterious mutations can serve a useful purpose. But they’re dysfunctional and there’s a reason we call them genetic diseases. ”
That was my point Perry.
They are only considered deleterious today because they cause more harm than good under our CURRENT environment. Under the environment in which they spread, they both significantly improved longevity and reproductive capacity.
Their prevalence today is due to a strong selective pressure in their favor in the past.
As for the information singularity. I prefer a variant of this theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
Which posits the existence of all possible outcomes until the arrival of an “ultimate observer” at timelike infinity which triggers a quantum state collapse back through time to the beginning.
Assuming the observer influences the collapse, then it effectively resolves the science / creationist issue without requiring a “first cause” as the initating event is the result of a large number of possible outcomes, no matter how unlikely.
Roger,
I will check out the Wigner’s Friend theory. If you want to discuss further, you’re welcome to post on my http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog
Perry
I respect folks who go out on a limb and predict for all the world to see. Overall, you’re in the ballpark. But there may be a few misses there, too.
#1 Sounds about right. The illusion of Google being fair and undecided–which isn’t to say that they may not be correct for banning individual advertisers–is a smart next step.
#2 I don’t think so. I don’t see the incentive for the folks at Twitter accepting less next year than they could have gotten last year. Especially when the value stands to rise once they’ve visibly begun a monetizing plan.
#3 This is an unfortunate next likely step by marketers. If it were not for my confidence that the internet will not die, I’d say this is the kind of thing that could kill it all, as people get disgusted with marketers making their way into too many recesses in our lives.
#4 Now I’ll go out on a limb: Never happen. Folks in Peoria want their own hometown paper, not rags–I use the word facetiously, as I’m not sure America would be as great as it is (warts and all) without newspapers–from the dread (again, facetiously, as I am a lefty myself) center of liberal thinking.
#5 Unfair of me to agree, as you’ve laid it out perfectly and in keeping with the groundwork we can see already in the music industry. I forget which band it was over the last yer or so that released an album online on a “pay-what-you-choose” basis. They were rewarded by their fans being pretty forthright, successfully cutting out the dead weight of record labels. Smaller artists will continue to find this a more level playing field on which to compete.
#6 Spot on.
#7 I think you’ve got this exactly right. And, again, smaller and new authors will find the self-publishing game a much more level playing field. The big change here–and I admit to a vested interest, as I am a book designer–is that more self-publishing authors will begin to see the value in investing in professional editing, design, and production, shying away from one-size-fits-all templates and the “typeset your book in word” shysters. The new wave of bestsellers (including those books from experienced, bestselling authors) will begin to come from the self-publishing ranks, as even established authors will decide they need their traditional publishers like a fish needs a bicycle (to purloin a phrase).
#8 Again, spot on.
#9 I don’t think the online world makes a neat comparison to biology. On the other hand, I still don’t understand why no one reconciles science and theology. There are reasonable ways to have both. That said, I think it’s more important that we recognize that organized religion has probably been responsible for more division and violence among human beings than most anything else over the course of history.
#10 I agree that Wikipedia’s a great thing, has done great things, and is responsible for drawing people-at-large into the knowledge game. But I also don’t believe they can ever silence their critics, as anyone can always question who contributes, where their info comes from, and what ax to grind does any contributor have–all legitimate questions. Then, too, their are those who wil be critics simply because their income-generating business is the whole thing of propagating and selling knowledge.
Hi Perry,
Stimulating predictions, thank you!
I predict that we will create even more than you have predicted, as we advance/evolve both spiritually and technologically.
Three things I’m certain about:
1. Collaboration is expanding and we are becoming one, again.
2. Our attempts to predict will be outperformed by our actions.
3. Unforseen events of magnitude will test us and help us evolve even more.
Now we must merely be our best and the detail will sort itself out.
Best wishes to all for the new year.
Unfortunately Perry doesn’t allow fault correction inside an organic system to be part of the proof that random mutations drive evolution.
The idea that fault correction is also the result of evolution is conveniently ignored.
Peter,
Can you show me an example of a noise-prevention mechanism that evolved from noise?
Noise is only harmful when it’s “louder” than the information. To get rid of the harmful effect of noise you can try to filter the noise, but you can also create a “louder” input signal.
In evolution, those that were the loudest (strongest), survived, the rest didn’t. (this is the natural selection process). Random mutations cause some to be “louder” than the rest. This can easily be 1 in every 10000000000 (equivalent of 99.99999999%) These will reproduce at a much higher rate and therefore develop.
Your argument is that that 1 mutation that caused some to be “louder” was actually engineered. (i.e. it was planned). This is where I don’t agree with you. Random mutations are the best way to drive change. It is the most ingenious way to drive change because it always works in every situation. There is no need to come up with a special solution in every individual case, this 1 simple solution is the most efficient way to drive improvement.
If you want to give the credits for this solution to something other than chance, (like God), that’s fine with me. On this point there is no need to argue because it’s a completely different discussion.
And yes, once a random mutation has occurred, this can result in a whole series of events that are controlled by the existing “programming” in DNA. That process you can call engineering by cells, but something has to trigger the process and that can only be a mutation.
The point of discussion is only the “trigger”, not the whole process that follows after a process is triggered.
Peter,
I’m an audio engineer and noise is always louder than SOME of the information. That’s why noise is ALWAYS considered bad.
You don’t need to repeat the whole natural selection mantra. I understand all that and I’ve heard it 1000 times before. I have no problem believing that once superior features exist, they can proliferate over inferior organisms. But you’re only explaining this from the standpoint of a vague thought experiment. What I’m asking you to do is DEMONSTRATE that random mutations produce novel features in the first place, so that they can then get selected.
My CosmicFingerprints.com site has had well over 1 million visitors in the last 5 years and is the subject of the longest running most viewed thread in the largest atheist website in the world (the infidels.org discussion forum). For 5 years I have asked people to show me ONE scientific paper that shows empirical evidence that random mutations produce new features.
No one has yet come forward with such a paper.
I am asking you: Please cite one scientific paper that empirically demonstrates that random mutations produce new features.
You’re an SEO guy, right? Do you add random text mutations to your web pages to make them better, knowing that Natural Selection will eventually bring the best pages to the top? Or do you make changes with deliberate intent? Does your daily work support the random mutation theory, or does it support the design argument?
Google does a superb job of Natural Selection. But does it prefer things that have evolved randomly or do things that are designed have a better chance of survival?
Hi Perry.
“Mutation is a random occurance (depending on the type of mutation you are talking about the result might not be).”
What you say in that blog post is covered in this statement. I imagine you are primarily considering the transposon work McClintock has done.
Mutation is random event. The result is often not random, it depends on the type.
Point mutations – may improve or make worse some genetic function. May activate and inactivate a gene.
Deletion – gets rid of stuff, but may also result in activation of previously disabled function.
Insertion – usually viral, usually harmful, may result in the activation or inactivation of function
Relocation – a deletion and an insertion
Duplication – changes functional levels, may also act as a relocation, provides material for redundancy and/or future experimentation.
There is clear evidence that cells allow certain types of mutation far more readily than others, and that levels of some types rise significantly under environmental stress, but that still doesn’t make them non-random, it just introduces bias into the likely outcomes.
And all that conspiracy talk about sabotaging careers, etc. That already happens throughout science for no better reason than to protect established personal interests. In fact, I know two people who have had work stolen from them by american researchers and used for that purpose. No conspiracy required, just self interest.
Roger,
Mutation is a non-random event. See See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf Search this document and others by Shapiro for the word “random” and you’ll see what I mean. Yes, random mutations do occur but they are harmful 99.99999999999999% of the time and never produce meaningful improvements.
For 5 years I have challenged visitors to my Cosmicfingerprints.com site to provide an example of a scientific paper that demonstrates that random mutations introduce new features to the genome. No one has come forward with one to date.
The question I have for you is:
Why would anyone hypothesize that they are random? Why would anyone suppose that they are not driven by some sort of algorithm? Why is a randomness hypotheses even considered scientific? After all, it doesn’t appeal to any underlying order or systematic explanation.
You can’t say that random mutations are 99.99999999999% of the time harmful. Even less you can say that they NEVER produce meaningful improvements.
Why can’t you say that?
Simple: You don’t know.
There is no scientific way that you can prove that they are 99.999999999% of the time harmful. Neither is there a scientific way that you can prove they NEVER lead to improvements.
Where do you get those idea’s from?
Mathematically you can prove that random mutations in DNA do lead to (very slow) improvements.
I need to qualify what I said.
In communication systems, noise (which is mathematically equivalent to mutations) is harmful 99.999999999% of the time.
DNA is 66% redundant, so 2/3rds of the time, the redundancy corrects the error.
Plus DNA has repair mechanisms.
Plus if a mutation alters a gene that is silent there will be no effect. So many times mutations are neutral. But random mutations are beneficial so rarely as to be negligible.
I quote “Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome” by population geneticist JC Sanford (p. 26):
As a communications engineer I know exactly why this is so. Advantageous mutations can only come from insertion sequences, transpositions and cellular genetic engineering, not random noise.
Peter, I invite you and others to post a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal that demonstrates otherwise. You are welcome to mathematically prove that random mutations do lead to (very slow) improvements – that would add much to our discussion.
DNA being 66% redundant? Oh wow, that reminded me of when I read that all the data on a standard audio CD was the same way. Only 1/3 of that data is raw music; the rest is redundancy, padding, framing, etc., to make sure you get out what you put in, and what makes them pretty impervious to most blemishes and scratches. And I think all that was designed long before such CDs were used for data, where such error correction is much more vital.
And I learned a while back (yup, at Space Camp) that the Space Shuttle always has 2 redundant systems for each active system (oxygen recycling, heating, exhaust, etc.).
Coincidence?
-Jake
We study search demand/supply trends from around the world to find profitable niches and products, and the main problem with predictions is that no one looks at the “supply” side to these predictions. A niche, or hot predictions, is not just a demand side issue, but a supply/demand curve. If you predict IPHONE apps will take off, and there are already 100,000 aps, then you aren’t going to hit that one. If you see that demand for cell phone radiation shields is going nuts and there are only two suppliers, then you can be pretty sure that it will be a good year for those 2 supplies. The software at http://www.TheInternetTimeMachine.com studies both the demand (search volume) and supply (think “results” in Google). The Google Phone is generating much more buzz right now then say the Apple Tablet.
Cheers,
Curt
Here is a video on what I mean.. http://bit.ly/SupplyDemandCurves
Perry, I totally agree with #1. Google is not out there to kill affiliate marketing; they have to find a way to work with people that spend money on Google. Just slaps and bans do not do too much in terms of learning and positive experience for both parties: advertisers and Google. So far, I created 1 campaign on Adwords. It was approved; the quality score was 7/10. Traffic I received was zero. I asked for explanation, Google replied: ‘How was your experience? We want to know’. I did not bother to reply. Until this day I have no idea why I received no traffic. I hope to find the answer in your book “Ultimate Guide to Google AdWords’ which is supposed to arrive in February. Looking forward to get my hands on your book.
#4 – great one.
#7 – Kindle. Again, I totally agree. When Kindle was new and nothing else was on the market, the choice was clear. Now it is going to be a little more difficult to select the right device with so many models on the market. But it’s not going to prevent the growth of electronic reading.
I also totally agree with #8. I understood that WordPress was the way to go for me and all my websites are WordPress Thesis based.
I was hoping that you would mention your thoughts about Facebook. Your club has over 1500 members. I am one of them. I think Facebook is heading in the wrong direction in terms of banning people from advertising and giving no specific explanation why they ban. I think they are trying to duplicate Google. If your prediction #1 about Google comes true, may be Facebook will follow in their steps. As you can guess, Perry, I was one of the people that were banned from Facebook advertising with no clear explanation.
I wish you have a great 2010, I wish you a lot of great new ideas and lots of inspiration!
Alla,
Bryan or Drew will comment on Facebook, they’re more experts than I. I don’t think Facebook is yet interested in turning on the revenue faucet full throttle. For me Facebook is a minor factor in sales. It’s a good place for getting feedback.
Perry is one sharp cookie… and the champ of Google Adwords.
I’m not sure this list is his best work. So many of the things he’s mentioned are already in the works. Predictions should cover NEW things that people can’t already see limping across the finish line.
Like:
1. How bricks and mortar businesses will have a resurgence of business when they figure out the correct model for marketing (and it’s not to lie down and play dead when a Wallmart comes to town).
2. Google Friend Connect, Wave, Android, Chrome will all mesh into one, providing the new social media location, over taking Facebook by 2013. (People with their not-yet-realized phone (not the Droid which is Android on Verizon) will see massive increases in their organic Google searches).
3. Businesses that have yet to embrace the net will find that major marketing principals that most are forgetting are much more important that which tools are used… and they will see their businesses increase dramatically.
4. Consumers will find that staying in touch by computer will decline dramatically as smart phones race past their tipping point and mobile connectivity explodes. AND search engines will decline with more and more App usage (which by pass Apps).
5. Those marketers that get you on a list and then do nothing but send you opportunities to purchase from them will be seen for the spammers they are and people will unsubscribe in droves. (Perry is NOT one of those!)
Thanks for the great info on here, Perry. I look forward to more.
Best,
Charlie Seymour Jr
http://UltimateWorkAtHomeDads.com
Charlie,
My take on your take:
1) I believe that nothing Google does will overtake Facebook. Facebook is unstoppable at this point. I’m somewhat skeptical in general that Google can really succeed at social media. My early, early take on Google Wave is, you have to have too high of an IQ to fully appreciate it. Social Media has to be SIMPLE.
2) There will always be a segment of the world that doesn’t ‘get’ the Internet and that’s OK. Actually one prediction I failed to mention is that advanced online marketers will go offline in much greater numbers to get customers. I’m already seeing this happen.
3) I didn’t say anything about phones. Yes, huge trend. I think the tipping point is when someone makes a phone that can fully double as a PC, just by plugging in a monitor and keyboard. I’m puzzled why this doesn’t really exist yet but it can’t be more than 2 years away.
I think the biggest prediction you’re missing Perry, is the Apple Tablet.
It’s only rumor now, but if any of the rumors are accurate, it’s a game changer. And not just for portable computing, but for personal computing entirely.
In fact, if this “little” company ( http://www.litl.com/ ) can release a pretty sweet looking device without Apple engineers, imagine what Apple can do with multi-touch screens, augmented reality, and more.
The Kindle is single-function. Tablets are multi-purpose. Kind of like how the iPhone replaced the MP3 player, phone, internet, GPS, and handheld gaming device in the pocket.
Well, Apple itself started as a small company. Many disruptive devices come from small startups and no device is easy to get to market. We respect Apple but I personally wouldn’t look down at litl’s in-house engineers in comparison to Apple’s. Anyway we have at least one ex-Apple employee plus a number of ex-OLPC, ex-Ximian, ex-Novell, ex-Sony and ex-Red Hat engineers/designers, all of the highest technical standard and many with 10+ years experience, just to name a few. And all companies are using ODMs in Taiwan or PRC who bring their own substantial engineering base to all their clients. We used Moto Engineering Group for engineering consulting, I believe they may also have Apple as a client. This is all by way of saying: don’t always expect Goliath to win against David, especially if David has some hot slingshots. Litl has some hot slingshots. Inquiries: [email protected] attn Phil.
Great list Perry! I’d like to offer an alternate reality for #2.
My prediction is that a major competitor to Twitter will rise in 2010, with better functionality and better compatibility with other social media…it may create a big buzz in 2010 but won’t overcome Twitter for a few years (due to its large base).
All the success to everyone in 2010! I feel the winds a changing ;)
It’s fun to do things like this — Thanks, Perry!
I’ll miss “real” books and newspapers, but there was a time (a couple of years ago) that I preferred CD’s to iTunes.
Now I could never go back…
Happy New Year to you all!
–Derek
A great article! Congratulations Perry! This is indeed professional journalism :) A remarkable text! Happy 2010 :)
I think that either Google or someone else will come along with a more human centered search engine that goes beyond the current algorythems that rank results. Example: you search online for “dentist chicago” and Google provides a number of directory sites in the top of the results. I don’t want a directory. I want a dentist. I look to Google as being that directory.
Same with information.
That seems to me to be “the last frontier” of search, at least for now. Centering on the true needs, and moving beyond a platform that is just too open to people trying to fool the engines just to get high rankings.
That requires artificial intelligence, something people talk about, but which has never actually been accomplished. One of the more subtle aspects of my point #9 is that biological evolution happens because DNA is literally intelligent – the total polar opposite of the Darwinian theory of randomness. My prediction is that once we crack the code on DNA (which requires that we accept that it’s designed, purposeful and non-random) we’ll also crack the code on search engines that “know” what people are looking for. This spills over into every branch of technology.
But how do we explain that proteins like prions that do not have any DNA or RNA evolve and adapt to environmental stress?
A process called Cellular Genetic Engineering – See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf
Hi Perry,
Thanks for your predictions. For item 3, where you talk about targeted contextual ads, seems that some top gurus are suggesting this is the next big thing in ppc.
Will there be a time where this method become saturated and the cpc become excessively high?
All great marketing ideas become saturated after awhile. Then the next new idea comes along….
Mr. Marshall stated “Nothing has done more for bringing the Open Source movement to the masses.” referring to Wikipedia.
I am one who still scoffs at Wiki sources because of the past bias that prevails in so many articles.
I for one would offer Linux and Firefox as premier examples of what the Open Source alternative offers and the brilliance that prevails.
“I am not out to destroy Microsoft. That will be just an completely unintentional side effect.” (Linus Torvalds)