Human beings were designed over hundreds of thousands of generations in a process of evolution, but the institutions of our modern world are mostly expert designed. Here are the differences:
Here, experts share their experience, lines of evidence, personal analyses and come to a consensus on what the best design should be in committees.
As you can see, because they are forming conclusions before they share, the true shape of the fitness landscape (a metaphor for the complexity of the problem) remains unknown.
Here, a single idea is tested and retested as quickly as possible, with each version scored against the previous tests. It often involves semi random jumps around the landscape at the beginning until a workable design appears, and then further iterations are more conservative.
Evolution is a massively parallel version of iterative design. Even though iterative redesign in biological evolution are entirely random recombinations of traits from successful individuals, the parallel nature of the process makes it more efficient than any other approach. It works best when generations are shorter and there is much trait diversity.
I’ve already talked about this concept at length here. Now I ask you – are these images clearer than the previous explanation? Are fitness landscapes just too complicated to provide a clear explanation of the ideas?