• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Evolution?

jimbob said:
Would the mamalian eye have been designed?

Even an incompetent designer would put the blood supply behind the light-sensitive cells.

The results of evolution and design often differ
Click to expand...

As do different designs of essentially the same product (plasma screen; LCD screen)! How many ways are there to skin a cat these days? ;)
 
ImaginalDisc said:
You are making the egregious error of assuming that evolution necessarily leads to increased complexity. There are innumerable perfectly successful species of bacteria, which together out number and out mass anything complex enough to have pretentions of superiority. Higher orders of functionality are a goal of design, but an accident of evolution.
Click to expand...

... and you are making the more egregious and, frankly, inexcusable, error of reading into articulett's words something she hasn't actually said, which is symptomatic of your thought process and your inability to see what others are trying to show you. As you admitted earlier: you 'fail' to see.

Regardless, you will, if you take the time to look and think, observe machines of extremely varying complexity around you, just like organisms.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Full stop. They "changed over time," which is the incorrect usage of evolution in a discussion about Evolution where the OP is intended to discuss teaching evolution to a person in the future.
Click to expand...

Er ... wrong! The OP is intended to demonstrate that irreducible complexity is a fallacy - no more; no less. Yes, I used the word 'evolved', as it's alomost impossible not to, but as I've pointed out recently, exactly like that, in inverted commas. I believe I've also pointed out earlier that it was not my intention to try to explain the mechanics(!) of evolution to the time traveller, as that would only confuse, as it seems to have done in this thread.

I have used the words 'casual observation' on numerous occassions to try to emphasize my purpose.

Articulett is spot on - the analogy, whilst not perfect at the detailed evolution 'explanation' level, still serves a useful purpose to those like I, with plastic brains, who otherwise might fall for the irreducible complexity argument.

I think your misinterpretation of the OP from the get go possibly backs up cyborg's claim that your pre-conceptions are so ingrained that you are unable to see beyond them. Analogies require that you can suspend literalism, to be effective.
 
quixotecoyote said:
You mistake disagreement for misunderstanding. Of course I understand what your analogy is trying to say, but you are reducing evolution to "Change over time". ANY change over time. That's not how evolution works in biology. You'll certainly get people to wrap their minds around evolution with your analogy. Unfortunately you're also including many unrelated and erroneous factors as well.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
quixotecoyote said:
Have you been reading ImaginalDisc's posts? I'm not sure you have.
Click to expand...

I sure have (you might have noticed that I've responded to some). He's written a lot, though, on this thread, much of which, I consider, has been validly challenged or discredited. Given that it is you who has alluded to these 'unrelated and erroneous factors', with no cross-reference to ID's posts, I just thought it would be helpful to provide a concise summary, rather than a sweeping statement that leaves one wondering.
 
Southwind17 said:
I sure have (you might have noticed that I've responded to some). He's written a lot, though, on this thread, much of which, I consider, has been validly challenged or discredited. Given that it is you who has alluded to these 'unrelated and erroneous factors', with no cross-reference to ID's posts, I just thought it would be helpful to provide a concise summary, rather than a sweeping statement that leaves one wondering.
Click to expand...

<shrug> I can copy&paste if you like

ImaginalDisc said:
Design can overhaul, evolution cannot.

Design can plan for long-term development, evolution cannot.

Design can lift elements from one type of thing and apply them to another, evolution cannot.

Design can retain the plans of a form indefinately, evolution cannot.

Living things are produced by autonumous reproduction, machines are not.

Living things have heritable traits, machines do not.

Living things mutate, and those mutations are passed on. Machines neither mutate, nor pass on mutations.
Click to expand...
 
jimbob; said:
ImaginalDisc,

Just to clarify on one of Cyborg's repeated assertions.

I am not arguing that evolution cannot happen to non-biological systems, it just cannot happen to any system without imperfect self-replication. It has to happen in any system with imperfect self-replication.

Evolutionary algorithms are directed towards particular goals, so are not evolution.

Am I correct that this is also what you are saying?
Click to expand...

Evolution could take place in imperfectly replicating machines acting autonomously in an environment without any design decisions being made by intelligent actors.

However, that is not how machines are made. If machines could operate under the same constraints as living things, which I listed above, then they'd Evolve.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Saying "Can, but doesn't have to" rather missed the point, as ID never claimed they had to.
Click to expand...

OK, so if they don't 'have to' then ID's list becomes worthless. If we were to take an example of a 'design' (noun) where the characteristics don't apply, you're effectively saying that each of ID's list items can be re-worded thus:

[The] [d]esign can [, but in this particular case doesn't] ...

then we end up with exactly the same result as evolution will derive.

Haven't you just negated ID's argument?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Evolution could take place in imperfectly replicating machines acting autonomously in an environment without any design decisions being made by intelligent actors.

However, that is not how machines are made. If machines could operate under the same constraints as living things, which I listed above, then they'd Evolve.
Click to expand...

So, if, as an 'engineer', I took a machine, in an early stage of its development (evolution!) and said: "OK, I'm gonna make a random change to one of its components, be that a change in length, width, weight, material composition, whatever, and see what effect that has, and if the effect is good or indifferent, as judged by its ability to serve a useful function, then I'll retain that change, but if the effect is bad then I'll reject that change and try another random change.", how does that differ from natural evolution?
 
Southwind17 said:
OK, so if they don't 'have to' then ID's list becomes worthless. If we were to take an example of a 'design' (noun) where the characteristics don't apply, you're effectively saying that each of ID's list items can be re-worded thus:

[The] [d]esign can [, but in this particular case doesn't] ...

then we end up with exactly the same result as evolution will derive.

Haven't you just negated ID's argument?
Click to expand...

Not in the least. In saying design can but doesn't have to, evolution can't, you would simply take instances of design showing those characteristics. As evolution cannot match them, the argument holds.
 
Southwind17; said:
So, if, as an 'engineer', I took a machine, in an early stage of its development (evolution!) and said: "OK, I'm gonna make a random change to one of its components, be that a change in length, width, weight, material composition, whatever, and see what effect that has, and if the effect is good or indifferent, as judged by its ability to serve a useful function, then I'll retain that change, but if the effect is bad then I'll reject that change and try another random change.", how does that differ from natural evolution?
Click to expand...

No. No one judges whether a mutation is good or bad, and no one needs to. The organism either survives and reproduces, or it does not. Choice is not a requisite part of Evolution, and what you are describing is artificial selection, which is demonstrably not a satisfactory explanation for the origin of species.
 
jimbob said:
Would the mamalian eye have been designed?

Even an incompetent designer would put the blood supply behind the light-sensitive cells.

The results of evolution and design often differ
Click to expand...
Detached retinas happen many times because of this. And don’t forget cataracts, glaucoma etc. Yes, a very poor design, no intelligence behind it at all.

Also the eye also has evolved again in the line leading to the octopus and its other close relatives, animals who distant ancestors has no eyes at all. And also it has a blood supply behind the light-sensitive cells, gee, the right way in a so-called lesser animal.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
evolution can't
Click to expand...

Yes, it can. It just doesn't - IN BIOLOGY - because there is no selective pressure for such design concerns. There is nothing preventing me from formulating such selective pressures in an abstract system. Something you, ID and jimbob are having a singular difficulty grasping and are ALL engaging in the Tai Chi argument of, "If the program was intelligently designed the results are a demonstration of the neccessary a priori existence of intelligence."

That is you are the one's arguing for ID every time you make any involvement of humans suddenly change the entire nature of the domain of discussion because an IDer will do the same thing with a god.

No one judges whether a mutation is good or bad,
Click to expand...

The personable traits of the judgement system, are, IRRELEVANT to the ability to simply MAKE a judgement.

what you are describing is artificial selection,
Click to expand...

Tell me: does calling the selection 'artificial' somehow change the physicality of the biology in a special way? Is the DNA of a cow aware of the intervention of a human when he tried to improve the beef or milk weild? This is what you are arguing.

which is demonstrably not a satisfactory explanation for the origin of species.
Click to expand...

But you cannot quantify why this is so - you can only assert humans are special.

IDers think humans are special too. That's why they insist god designed them.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Not in the least. In saying design can but doesn't have to, evolution can't, you would simply take instances of design showing those characteristics. As evolution cannot match them, the argument holds.
Click to expand...

And if you can show a design that doesn't display those characteristics?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
No. No one judges whether a mutation is good or bad, and no one needs to. The organism either survives and reproduces, or it does not. Choice is not a requisite part of Evolution, and what you are describing is artificial selection, which is demonstrably not a satisfactory explanation for the origin of species.
Click to expand...

Nature 'decides' whether a mutation is good or bad - survival of the fittest!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom