Intelligent Evolution?

[plumjam]

I think the OP's point is that if you took someone from 2000 years ago, they would never believe that! They could not imagine those progressive improvements intelligent beings had made, from simple minerals in the ground. They would only see the final products, and probably be convinced that they are all "irreduicbly complex", could not have possibly "evolved" from dirt, etc.

I think the conclusion those time travellers would make about our hi-fis and cars is that they were designed using intelligence.. the only disagreement possibly centering on whether that intelligence be divine or human.
I don't think any reasonably intelligent time traveller would conclude that the hi-fi or car came about gradually over time through random progressive increases in comlpexity.
Presumably the mechanism would have to be strong winds or floods or something of that nature; capable of moving dead bits of matter about and rearranging them randomly without intelligence.
Say I put a hi-fi in a barrel, then I put several 'improving' components along with their wires into the barrel with the hi-fi. (It's an equal mystery where these 'improving' components would have come from too)
Then I close the barrel top. Let's say the hi-fi will buzz when it has been upgraded, to let me know.
How many trillions of years would I have to roll the barrel around before those components would become attached to the hi-fi in the correct places, in the right sequence and with the right wiring?
After say 10 trillion years, getting a bit tired and hearing no buzz I'd stop and open the barrel. Instead of a new improved hi-fi what I'll have is a pile of dust.
The same applies to life. Except that the simplest form of life is enormously more complex than any hi-fi.

 

[uruk]

Superficially attractive, but not really a good approximation at all.

What "evolution" changes a cathode ray tube TV into an LCD or a plasma? It is not a matter of gradual change of the CRT to effect this but a major saltation involving new technology not included in the previous design.

Plasma screen TV's are some what related to CRT. You still have the idea of a cathode and anode and phosphorous. The principal is the same. High electric charge creates plasma that stimmulates light from a coating of phosphorous.

And LCD di go through its evolution period from mood rings to calculator displays to laptop monitors to computer monitors. paassive to active matrix etc...


nitpicky geek mode deactivated

 

[Foster Zygote]

Although, I do think the argument is flawed precisely for the reason that folks like plumjam, here, are going to try to claim that it is an argument for ID.
(The same way creationists used Dawkins' own biomorphs argument as an argument for ID. In that case, they miss the point of genetic variation over time, regardless of what is shaping the design.)

*thwap*

 

[ponderingturtle]

No.

Televisions, airplanes, and Ipods are not organisms that reproduce, passing on hertiable traits. Analogies between the development of machines and evolution of organisms are only useful when you contrast, seeing how incredibly different the two processes are.

So you are saying my plan to cross breed a plane and an Ipod is doomed to failure?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So you are saying my plan to cross bread a plane and an Ipod is doomed to failure?

Yes, because "bread" is not a verb.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Plasma screen TV's are some what related to CRT. You still have the idea of a cathode and anode and phosphorous. The principal is the same. High electric charge creates plasma that stimmulates light from a coating of phosphorous.

Not really. They are an evolution of Neon signs much more than CRT's and have much more in common with neon signs than CRT's. They lack cathode rays for instance.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, because "bread" is not a verb.

Look everything is supposed to be better fried right?

 

[uruk]

Not really. They are an evolution of Neon signs much more than CRT's and have much more in common with neon signs than CRT's. They lack cathode rays for instance.

Well, cathode rays are nothing more than a stream of electrons. And it is electrons passing through the gas that creates the plasma in a plasma screen tv. But then that's kinda being nitpicky.

But you're right it is a bit more closer to a neon sign.

 

[uruk]

So you are saying my plan to cross breed a plane and an Ipod is doomed to failure?

No. that Apple's new product to go out. The i-plane. It makes phone calls, surfs the web, takes pictures and video, and can hold a bazillion songs and movies. Oh and it can fly too.

It costs 1.4 million for the 8 gig version and 2 million for the 20 gig version.

 

[cyborg]

Delete me.

 

[cyborg]

No. When a machine is deliberately designed, the creation process in no way resembles a machine embyro growing acording to a recipie of parts generated fro a blueprint taken from the blueprints of two other machines without any intelligently directly oversight, editing, or testing. The machine embryo does not interact autonumously with its environment, struggling to reproduce its blueprints in a populations of competing machines.

Ugh. Yet again the creation process is not relevant. It is the CHANGE IN DESIGN that is important.

Understanding the way individual organisms develop isn't even necessary to understand evolution.

Real machines can be designed from whole cloth, springing fully formed from the brow of their inventors like Athena. Living things only arise from other living things. While a living thing can resemble a machine in function, living things never resemble machines in their origin.

Living things CANNOT resemble machines in their origin? That seems to be a pretty strong claim considering the way organic technology is heading.

I agree, as long as one makes it clear to the person you're trying to explain evolution to that whereas technological design is usually driven by intent ("How can we redesign the current car to make it turn faster lap times?") evolution by natural selection is driven by no such goal oriented force.

The goals are implicit rather than explicit - or natural if one prefers. Failing to achieve these nebulous goals constitutes design failure.

Changing the goals from implicit to explicit doesn't affect the process.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Living things CANNOT resemble machines in their origin? That seems to be a pretty strong claim considering the way organic technology is heading.

What's fascinated me for the last few years is the realization that technology is a result of biology. People speak of it as though it is "unnatural", yet it would not exist if not for natural biology. Technology is an emergent property of life. The ability of life to collect, store and share information has enabled it to learn how to rearrange matter to make things that are not life themselves, but are a direct result of it, and interconnected with it. Given this I think it makes sense that many technological artifacts would have some resemblance to their source.

 

[cyborg]

Given this I think it makes sense that many technological artifacts would have some resemblance to their source.

I think it is perhaps simpler than that: evolution is the simplest possible algorithm that can work for basically any problem.

Either it works or it does not. If it works, great. If not change and retry.

Nothing more fancy is required: the extra fancy stuff (a priori knowledge) is an exercise in pruning unfruitful branches before you even attempt to follow them.

 

[Wowbagger]

I don't think any reasonably intelligent time traveller would conclude that the hi-fi or car came about gradually over time through random progressive increases in comlpexity.

That is almost exactly the OP’s point. Hi-Fis and Cars have come about, gradually, and over time. Though, not necessarily always increasing in complexity. Sometimes there would be decreases in complexity. But, the time traveler would not know any of that, nor would they likely guess.

I sense you are almost starting to get it, and yet you might still be missing something.

Say I put a hi-fi in a barrel, then I put several 'improving' components along with their wires into the barrel with the hi-fi. (It's an equal mystery where these 'improving' components would have come from too)
Then I close the barrel top. Let's say the hi-fi will buzz when it has been upgraded, to let me know.
How many trillions of years would I have to roll the barrel around before those components would become attached to the hi-fi in the correct places, in the right sequence and with the right wiring?
After say 10 trillion years, getting a bit tired and hearing no buzz I'd stop and open the barrel. Instead of a new improved hi-fi what I'll have is a pile of dust.
The same applies to life. Except that the simplest form of life is enormously more complex than any hi-fi.

Ah, yes, a variation of the old storm-in-a-junk-yard routine.

The analogy you describe breaks down when you consider a few things:
1. Evolution does NOT imply random bits randomly getting tossed together. It is an entirely non-random process. That is what natural selection is: Selection naturally occurring based on whatever happens to survive the best in the given environment. (No randomness required.)
2. The changes would be cumulative, not "saltating" all at once.
3. The time periods involved in evolution are much longer than the average storm or barrel roll.
4. Hi-Fis and jets do not replicate themselves. Life forms do. And, anytime something can replicate themselves, with any amount of variation in their offspring, it presents an opportunity for natural selection to take place. No such opportunity for Hi-Fis.
5. Presumably, the parts in the barrel or junkyard, would not be able to mutate or otherwise generate variation amongst themselves, like the parts of the genome can.

And so on.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Ugh. Yet again the creation process is not relevant. It is the CHANGE IN DESIGN that is important.

Understanding the way individual organisms develop isn't even necessary to understand evolution.

Living things have no design at all. They have functions that have arisen out of mutation, acted upon by natural and sexual selection, not design.

Living things CANNOT resemble machines in their origin? That seems to be a pretty strong claim considering the way organic technology is heading.

Then it is machines which will resemble living things in origin, though that would be spectacularly inefficient. Evolution is fairly slow and given to meandering. The advantage of design is that you can discard old mistakes and return to the drawing board whenever you wish.

The goals are implicit rather than explicit - or natural if one prefers. Failing to achieve these nebulous goals constitutes design failure.

The functions of living things are not driven by a goal of efficiency, elegance, or any other interest of human engineers. The only goal of living things is the reproduction of genes.

 

[Southwind17]

Living things have no design at all. They have functions that have arisen out of mutation, acted upon by natural and sexual selection, not design.

I agree entirely with Cyborg, but 'CHANGE IN FUNCTION' might have been a better choice of words than 'CHANGE IN DESIGN', which implies forethought. I think you have alluded to this preference yourself, and I don't believe it alters Cyborg's point.

The functions of living things are not driven by a goal of efficiency, elegance, or any other interest of human engineers. The only goal of living things is the reproduction of genes.

The functions of living things may not be 'driven' by a goal of efficiency, elegance or any other interest, rather they are 'dictated' by such 'goals', hence natural selection. The inefficient (or weaker, if you will) fail to satisfy in the long term (steam engine), only to be replaced through evolution by the stronger (internal combustion engine).

 

[Darat]

No.

Televisions, airplanes, and Ipods are not organisms that reproduce, passing on hertiable traits. Analogies between the development of machines and evolution of organisms are only useful when you contrast, seeing how incredibly different the two processes are.

Depends on how you look at things, a virus often co-opts a cell's reproductive mechanism to reproduce itself rather than the cell, an iPod co-opts humans to reproduce itself....

 

[Southwind17]

No.

Televisions, airplanes, and Ipods are not organisms that reproduce, passing on hertiable traits. Analogies between the development of machines and evolution of organisms are only useful when you contrast, seeing how incredibly different the two processes are.

This misses the point. At the risk of reiterating other posters, my point is that, regardless of the machinations behind the processes, modern technological creations would appear irreducibly complex to earlier humans from superficial observation and examination. As such, they could be considered no different from the functionality of complex organisms from an ID perspective. But technology has followed an evolutionary process, be that holistically and/or at the individual component level.

All I'm suggesting is that technological advancement (through evolution) demonstrates that advanced organisms shouldn't surprise us to the extent that we must default to ID as the driving force.

 

[cyborg]

Living things have no design at all.

Yes they do. They have an implicit design.

They have functions that have arisen out of mutation, acted upon by natural and sexual selection, not design.

Yes, yes all very well - but you are using design as a verb and I am using it as a noun.

Then it is machines which will resemble living things in origin, though that would be spectacularly inefficient. Evolution is fairly slow and given to meandering. The advantage of design is that you can discard old mistakes and return to the drawing board whenever you wish.

What has that got to do with the process of creating an instance? It seems you are getting the wrong end of the stick each and every time here.

The functions of living things are not driven by a goal of efficiency, elegance, or any other interest of human engineers. The only goal of living things is the reproduction of genes.

Efficiency is certainly an implict goal in highly competetive environments.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes they do. They have an implicit design.



Yes, yes all very well - but you are using design as a verb and I am using it as a noun.

Then stop. This is a thread about Intelligent Design and Evolution. Don't deliberately muddy the waters with equivocation.

What has that got to do with the process of creating an instance? It seems you are getting the wrong end of the stick each and every time here.

No, because we're talking about proving Evolution, and evolution is about the origin of living things and their forms and functions. In the context of origins, your use of design does not apply because living things were not designed, they Evolved, wheras machines were designed, they did not evolve.

Efficiency is certainly an implict goal in highly competetive environments.

No, it isn't. Reproduction is the only "goal" of living things. Life, and evolution have no goals, and have no design. They have no designer. They have a form that has developed through genetic drift, and natural and sexual selection.

Please stop deliberately trying to inappropriately interject "design," as you "see" it, into a discussion about evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the alternative to the theory of design.