Intelligent Evolution?

[articulett]

Dawkins quote:

``Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students."

Steven Jones was clearly showing how the algorithm of natural selection applies to technology... and can design from the bottom up... better even, then top down design.

I just think, as with any faith, nothing will convince you that the evolution of memeplexes (information systems) is on par with the evolution of genomes. And the design of airplanes is an information system that has evolved. Dennett gives very similar analogies. You guys just can't make the mental leap that others on this thread find useful. Go ahead...ask your friends... take a poll... describe why the 747 junkyard analogy is wrong and how selection brings about the "appearance of design" and then show them Southwind's analogy an ask them what is clearer. Test them on how the appearance of design or complexity comes about...

You will see... your inability to make the analogy work-- doesn't extend to the majority.

 

[jimbob]

The reason there is a difference is because the molecules are not the same.

Paul

Furthermore does the fact that the carbon atoms are the same* help in any way to further the OP?

Carbon in living and unliving things has six protons. The statement that designed things evolved as opposed to developed is thus somehow useful.

As you said before, I would be very interested to see any real example of intelligent evolution.


*although in the atom's electrons (which must be part of the atom) would be in different configurations due to pi-bonding etc in the organic moleules in the cat....

 

[articulett]

This is still an argumentum ad populum; you are still essentially saying that "experts" using the analogy makes it correct. Besides, I wouldn't get too lathered up over a Dawkins description; he has shown a ttnedency yo use terms imprecisely when it suits him. For instance, he is know to rail about how evolution is "non-random" but then go on to say that advantageous mutations improve their possessors greater chances or higher probability of reproduction.



This is exactly the point: evolution is not concerned with "correctness" and technological development is. Engineers see what worked in the past and deliberately try to emulate in their designs. Evolution has no such mechanism of deliberate emulation.

Yes, Mijo, we already know you think you are better at explaining things than Dawkins. Unfortunately that opinion only seems to exist in your creationist head. It's not about correctness... just like evolution is not about what you think of as "fit"-- you just are clueless.

It's about what works. What can the information do to ensure that it is passed on...

The only people who seem to have problems with Dawkins explanations seem to be creationists and assorted apologists and "intelligent design proponents" pretending they aren't. Nutters that think carbon atoms in the body are different in some way than the carbon atoms in your car. You see differences that aren't there...you are very unclear... and you can't see fabulous analogies before your eyes. Flog whoever is responsible for this mental blight. I suspect it's your faith meme.

 

[jimbob]

BTW, I don't think Behe would ever use such an analogy--because he knows very well it could lead to people seeing how complexity and seeming design could come about rather easily given selection over time with exponential increase of success. Heck, computer evolution is a really good model of that... When information can be stored in small spaces and copied and multiplied with great fidelity--complexity can increase exponentially once a "toehold" has been established. No human can predict the future of technology and yet we are all likely a part of what it will become. Bottom up "design" is the norm for all complexity.

Behe is also careful to over-emphasize randomness in evolution and skip over natural selection--because he knows full well that it makes people as confused sounding as Mijo and thus evolution is not understood.

Other creationists do, and Behe's is implied from his statements:

Perry Marshall's Intelligent Evolution Quick Guide

VIII. Evolution: 3 Kinds

1) Deliberate Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design (Business, Technology, NBA Playoffs)

2) Random Mutation + Deliberate Selection + Time = Design (Scrabble, Genetic Programs)

3) Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design (Never scientifically proven)

In daily conversation, the word “evolution” always refers to intelligent processes.

The only kind of evolution that is said to be non-intelligent is naturalistic biological evolution.

However there is no empirical evidence that truly random processes create significant evolutionary progress

Intelligent Evolution is an oxymoron. If one states that evolution could involve intelligent direction, then how is that different from accepting "microevolution" and directed "macroevolution" (terms which are meaningless).

Note that this site completely misrepresents how information is created by random mutation, and skip over natural selection.

 

[articulett]

Wrong, again. Either the organism reproduces, or it doesn't. The DNA is not some mastermind or puppeteer that controls the organism, because environmental influence,s many of which are entirely random, are also a factor. Your model is too simplistic.



Please cite any point where Dawkins has used an analogy just like Southwind's to explain Evolution. As I recall, he takes great pains to explain why the explanation for machines and life must be different.

Of course DNA isn't a mastermind... and neither are the people who brought us today's airplane. DNA is just information that spreads to the extent that it makes vectors that copy it. That's it. And you are wrong about Dawkins... you go look for the quote you imagine. Airplane designs are not master puppeteers nor are watch designs... The watches of today are built on the watches of yesterday whose designs had something that made them stick around...while those with lesser "sticking" designs faded. Chain letters are information that are good at getting themselves copied. They aren't masterminds. Nor are computer viruses... nor was the nozzle evolving algorithm. You are not understanding dawkins. Information that gets itself copied...via whatever means...sticks around to be built up, modified, recombined, inserted, honed, and mutated.

We've all said it over and over... Dawkins has said it. Face it... no amount of evidence is enough to convince you that this is a useful analogy. You could have the top experts of your choice in the field saying exactly what Southwind said or concurring that it's good... and you, like Mijo and Jim Bob would still think the analogy doesn't work just because it doesn't work for you guys--guys that suck at analogies by all measures... I mean do you get each others' analogies. Does anyone ever tell you that your analogies are great? Does any one actually teach evolution to others that sound like you? So far no evidence has been presented.

But, as always, I find faith based notions amusing... but impervious. I like to goad you guys, but it gets old. And I already know that nothing will make you understand that Southwind's analogy works for many and that few would find you guys "clearer".

I usually find you pretty intelligent, Imaginal Disc, but in this case you failure to understand why this analogy works so well for so many shows the rest of us that it's you who are missing what exactly it is that "drives" evolution and how the appearance of design comes about.

 

[articulett]

Other creationists do, and Behe's is implied from his statements:

Perry Marshall's Intelligent Evolution Quick Guide





Intelligent Evolution is an oxymoron. If one states that evolution could involve intelligent direction, then how is that different from accepting "microevolution" and directed "macroevolution" (terms which are meaningless).

Note that this site completely misrepresents how information is created by random mutation, and skip over natural selection.

You have really just revealed your cluelessness in an embarrassing way...why don't you and mijo and ID congratulate yourself on how much clearer you are than Dawkins and why your muddled mouth nothingness conveys evolution so much better than Southwind. And the rest of us will understand why the analogy works so well and utilize it to further our understanding of various complex systems and things that seem to miraculous to have come about--that is, until you understand the power of selection over time and info that helps itself get copied. Airplanes are "miracles" without the benefit of understand the evolutionary process... They are miracles to people of a mere hundred years ago.

It was Dawkins who said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from MAGIC. ..."

It isn't magic to us, because we've seen the evolution of airplane design in our lifetime.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, Mijo, we already know you think you are better at explaining things than Dawkins. Unfortunately that opinion only seems to exist in your creationist head. It's not about correctness... just like evolution is not about what you think of as "fit"-- you just are clueless.

It's about what works. What can the information do to ensure that it is passed on...

The only people who seem to have problems with Dawkins explanations seem to be creationists and assorted apologists and "intelligent design proponents" pretending they aren't. Nutters that think carbon atoms in the body are different in some way than the carbon atoms in your car. You see differences that aren't there...you are very unclear... and you can't see fabulous analogies before your eyes. Flog whoever is responsible for this mental blight. I suspect it's your faith meme.

Mice misstatement of my views. I see the you're still intent on lying about what other people say so that you won't actually have to address their arguments. First, when an explanation requires that you use words inconsistently, as Dawkins's explanation of the "non-randomness" of evolution and your explanation of the similarities of biological evolution and technological development do, the explanations suck plain and simple. Second, memetics is very controversial area of study. Some prominent evolutionary biologists, including Massimo Pigliucci, whom you have cited a support for your various points, think that there are some serious problems with memetics as a scientific theory. Third, you are deliberately lying when you say that I said that the carbon atoms in steel are fundamentally different than those in cats. I said that saying that all carbons atoms are the same because they have six protons completely misses the point when you are trying to discuss the chemical properties of carbon in different molecules. The carbon in steel is in a different electronic environment than that in glucose, giving each different chemical properties. Understanding these differences is crucial to understanding biochemistry, which you utterly fail to do.

 

[articulett]

I do not lie Mijo. It is generally liars who accuse me of lying. And your tangential patter is what misses the point. The question was about whether a certain analogy is useful. It is to many, many people. Most of them just happen to be smarter than you.

Does anybody take you seriously or think that you are good at communicating what Southwind was addressing. Can you sum up your other cohorts arguments as to why the analogy isn't useful? Can they sum up yours.

You spend a lot of words arguing some vague point that only you seem to find relevant.

What Pigliucci thinks of memetics has nothing to do with whether if the way information is selected and honed through time is analogous between technological "miracles" and the miracles we call life. Where is the teacher of evolution who expresses the notion that analogies such as Southwind's are more confusing then clarifying?

 

[cyborg]

I was clearly talking about the development of the internet. Are you saying that it did evolve but now isn't or that it is only now evolving?

No jimbob, I'm saying that the words you use to choose to describe it don't affect it. I've been saying this for sometime. You've been singularly unable to decouple yourself from your dichotomies.

It still doesn't evolve, but does demonstrate Adam Smith's "invisible hand".

Yes, much like animals didn't evolve, but do demonstrate God's "invisible hand."

Please remind me what your basic questions are.

Well if you're going to ask me WHY I am making this argument but then make no attempt to understand it or answer the questions I pose in order for you to understand it then what is the point of your communications with me?

The fact you skipped past them indicates the lack of this desire to me.

 

[cyborg]

. If one states that evolution could involve intelligent direction, then how is that different from accepting "microevolution" and directed "macroevolution" (terms which are meaningless).

All terms are meaningless jimbob - when are you going to grasp this?

 

[jimbob]

No jimbob, I'm saying that the words you use to choose to describe it don't affect it. I've been saying this for sometime. You've been singularly unable to decouple yourself from your dichotomies.

What does this mean, of coure words dont alter the facts of evolution, but they do alter the understanding

Yes, much like animals didn't evolve, but do demonstrate God's "invisible hand."

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was non-supernatural, and a demonstration of structure arising without a central plan.

Well if you're going to ask me WHY I am making this argument but then make no attempt to understand it or answer the questions I pose in order for you to understand it then what is the point of your communications with me?

The fact you skipped past them indicates the lack of this desire to me.

Or that it is very difficult to tell when you are trying to score a cheap shot and when you actually have something to say.

All terms are meaningless jimbob - when are you going to grasp this?

Isn't this Humpty Dumpty's argument in Alice?

Words might be physically patterns on surfaces or vibrations in air. But these convey meaning, and in attempts at communication, it is good to use the same agreed on terms for words, and not to use eccentric defintions.

 

[jimbob]

Firstly I have no problem with the OP if the word "evolved" is replaced with the word "developed".

I do not see that harming its point, and it stops the creationists or IDers claiming that they really are talking about evolution

You have really just revealed your cluelessness in an embarrassing way...why don't you and mijo and ID congratulate yourself on how much clearer you are than Dawkins and why your muddled mouth nothingness conveys evolution so much better than Southwind. And the rest of us will understand why the analogy works so well and utilize it to further our understanding of various complex systems and things that seem to miraculous to have come about--that is, until you understand the power of selection over time and info that helps itself get copied. Airplanes are "miracles" without the benefit of understand the evolutionary process... They are miracles to people of a mere hundred years ago.

It was Dawkins who said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from MAGIC. ..."

It isn't magic to us, because we've seen the evolution of airplane design in our lifetime.

Is William Dembski enough of a prominent ID proponent for you?


Intelligent Evolution” — If the courts rule against ID …

I therefore offer the following proposal if ID gets outlawed from our public schools: retitle it Intelligent Evolution (IE). The evolution here would be reconceived not as blind evolution but as technological evolution. Nor would it be committed to Darwin’s idea of descent with modification. But, hey, it would still be evolution, and evolution can be taught in schools. In fact, I think I’ll title my next book Intelligent Evolution: The Mindful Deviation of Evolutionary Pathways. Perhaps this book has already been written.

I therefore offer the following proposal if ID gets outlawed from our public schools: retitle it Intelligent Evolution (IE). The evolution here would be reconceived not as blind evolution but as technological evolution.

How does this differ from the OP?

Technological development, to my mind, is closely analogous to natural selection. Small but significant changes are made here and there over time such that each new variant becomes more and more sophisticated and capable. The ‘obsolete’ variety becomes less efficient or capable and is ‘discontinued’. It’s widely acknowledged that many major advancements in technology and medicine have come about through chance or fluke. That’s analogous to mutations in my mind.

Considering how technology has evolved over just the last 200 years it doesn’t seem at all amazing to me that animals and plants have only come as far as they have in the last 4 billion (catastrophic wipe-outs excepted)!

 

[mijopaalmc]

I do not lie Mijo. It is generally liars who accuse me of lying. And your tangential patter is what misses the point. The question was about whether a certain analogy is useful. It is to many, many people. Most of them just happen to be smarter than you.

Actually, articulett, you do lie and you do it quite brazenly every time you insist that the carbons in steel are exactly the same as the carbons in glucose and try to pass people who think otherwise off as "[n]utters that think carbon atoms in the body are different in some way than the carbon atoms in your car". I have acknowledged that carbons are all the same in so far as they all contain six protons. However, this universal quality property of carbon is not particularly relevant to explaining the differences in chemistry between steel and glucose, differences that are essential to understand if you hope to comprehend life at a molecular level.

You spend a lot of words arguing some vague point that only you seem to find relevant.

Correction: you do not find them relevant because they refute the "abstractions" that make your analogy possible.

What Pigliucci thinks of memetics has nothing to do with whether if the way information is selected and honed through time is analogous between technological "miracles" and the miracles we call life. Where is the teacher of evolution who expresses the notion that analogies such as Southwind's are more confusing then clarifying?

Actually, what Pigliucci says about mimetics because your insistence on "abstracting away" the differences between biological evolution and technological development removes the distinction between replicator and interactor. It all becomes "information that changes and reproduces" which is a bad analogy for biological evolution because the genetic information in biological evolution changes in very specific ways that are more limited that the corresponding information in technological development. Furthermore, and I have all pointed out from the beginning that it is a very poor choice to try to explain designerless biological evolution to processes that involve designers to people who already that God is a Cosmic Designer.

 

[articulett]

Mijo and Jimbob I have to put you on ignore... I'm sure if you have something insightful to say, someone will quote you. Do not pm me. My mailbox is nearly full, and I don't want desired email to bounce because you think you have something important to add.

You have a faith based notion that that it makes sense to call evolution random and that it doesn't make sense to show how evolution of technology is evolution of information just like evolution of genomes... No amount of evidence is enough. But what you think doesn't matter at all. Lots of people don't like it when people use "google" as a verb. However it is useful in conveying information so it catches on.

Evolution of information is useful to many people all over and the analogy is used by the top teachers in the field. Dembski is not saying anything even if you think he is... he is not likening the evolution of information to the evolution of genomes (which are just information--directions for making proteins which build life and life-ish things.) In fact, it sounds more like he's doing the revers--but I bet nobody can sum up what he's really trying to say--just as no-one can sum up Mijo. Hint--they aren't really saying anything. The same goes for Behe. It only sounds that way to the ignorant.

The ways we communicate WILL evolve in the ways that are best at passing the info. on--even if you don't like the direction because it makes no sense to you.

Sometimes the evolution of information is due to dishonesty...as when religion and Demski confuse so that people don't understand natural selection (how sad that you (jimbob) can't tell the difference between what Demski is saying (nothing) and what Southwind is saying, but it's well established that the only person who thinks you are good at analogies is yourself... and possibly people equally bad or worse--but it doesn't seem like the dissenters are on the same page as each other even.)

Religion answers sought after mystery with promises and faith and proselytizing and threats and encouragement to spawn and inculcate memes in the young--memes like "faith is good"--those are all clever ways to pass on information--but they aren't useful.

Science is useful. And so the body of knowledge evolves...we can use it to learn more info., refine it and pass it on... the internet does that too--exponential growth of information copying and spreading. The most useful ways of explaining things will evolve even if those who have no plasticity left in their thinking can understand the ideas conveyed.

Once again--this is not a question of fact. It's a question as to what is the best way to address certain questions and convey certain information. Southwind's way works and is used by many--as many who have dropped by this thread attest.

Pinker uses it readily-- and he also explains metaphor and analogy and how it applies to information of non-gene types in his new book: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Saletan-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I suspect he's much more brilliant and has taught many more people than the muddled mouthed individuals asserting that the analogy can't work just because they don't "get it". And it's not an argument of popularity--it's proof that it's useful as the OP asked...even if it's not useful to some creationists, pedants, and apologists--or old people who aren't up on technological information--how digital data is like DNA.

And here is a brief sampling of more for those who do get it-- this idea is being used all over as ID, Mijo, and Jim Bob sit there and cry that it can't work... just like we are learning more and more about evolution and DNA even as creationists truly truly believe that it can't be true.

http://www.singinst.org/blog/index.php?tag=evolution
http://blog.brainstore.com/
http://www.natureinterface.com/e/ni04/P026-029/
http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9896323&retitled
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19526146.000?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19526146.000
http://www.def-logic.com/articles/evolution_of_technology.html
http://virtuosowebdesign.com/web_2.html
http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_33_206.html
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/newpath/chap1.html
http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1999/vol3/langrish_jz.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/08/02/32OPstrategic_1.html
http://www.ntticc.or.jp/pub/ic_mag/ic028/html/065e.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=wO...ts=G73fMVsxmx&sig=3jc2wU4F8ln6nWU1nqYsbgTqRLw
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4811776/Good-better-best-The-evolution.html#abstract
http://www.answers.com/topic/iterative-design



And, you are the liar, Mijo... a lying creationist, apologist. I trust that other forum members will quote you if you have anything of value to say... and when I have you on ignore, I notice that hardly ever happens. As far as I can see, you have conveyed nothing of value to anyone... but I'm sure if I"m wrong your supporters will sum up something of value they have extrapolated from your meandering nothingness and jealousy over Dawkins, Southwind, and the many people so very much smarter and more honest than you.

So whether you understand the striking similarities or not are irrelevant--other people understand and use that understanding to their advantage. I think your sad little cries of "it can't work" are, not only alarmist, but very wrong. And a whole world of smart people seem to agree. Thinking that it's too different to be useful is only an indication that you don't see what others see more readily.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Mijo and Jimbob I have to put you on ignore... I'm sure if you have something insightful to say, someone will quote you. Do not pm me. My mailbox is nearly full, and I don't want desired email to bounce because you think you have something important to add.

You have a faith based notion that that it makes sense to call evolution random and that it doesn't make sense to show how evolution of technology is evolution of information just like evolution of genomes... No amount of evidence is enough. But what you think doesn't matter at all. Lots of people don't like it when people use "google" as a verb. However it is useful in conveying information so it catches on.

Not a defense of the logic of your argument.

Evolution of information is useful to many people all over and the analogy is used by the top teachers in the field. Dembski is not saying anything even if you think he is... he is not likening the evolution of information to the evolution of genomes (which are just information--directions for making proteins which build life and life-ish things.) In fact, it sounds more like he's doing the revers--but I bet nobody can sum up what he's really trying to say--just as no-one can sum up Mijo. Hint--they aren't really saying anything. The same goes for Behe. It only sounds that way to the ignorant.

The ways we communicate WILL evolve in the ways that are best at passing the info. on--even if you don't like the direction because it makes no sense to you.

No, not "Evolve" - at least not in any sense analogous to the development of life.

Sometimes the evolution of information is due to dishonesty...as when religion and Demski confuse so that people don't understand natural selection (how sad that you (jimbob) can't tell the difference between what Demski is saying (nothing) and what Southwind is saying, but it's well established that the only person who thinks you are good at analogies is yourself... and possibly people equally bad or worse--but it doesn't seem like the dissenters are on the same page as each other even.)

Religion answers sought after mystery with promises and faith and proselytizing and threats and encouragement to spawn and inculcate memes in the young--memes like "faith is good"--those are all clever ways to pass on information--but they aren't useful.

Science is useful. And so the body of knowledge evolves...we can use it to learn more info., refine it and pass it on... the internet does that too--exponential growth of information copying and spreading. The most useful ways of explaining things will evolve even if those who have no plasticity left in their thinking can understand the ideas conveyed.

Once again--this is not a question of fact. It's a question as to what is the best way to address certain questions and convey certain information. Southwind's way works and is used by many--as many who have dropped by this thread attest.

Pinker uses it readily-- and he also explains metaphor and analogy and how it applies to information of non-gene types in his new book: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Saletan-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I suspect he's much more brilliant and has taught many more people than the muddled mouthed individuals asserting that the analogy can't work just because they don't "get it". And it's not an argument of popularity--it's proof that it's useful as the OP asked...even if it's not useful to some creationists, pedants, and apologists--or old people who aren't up on technological information--how digital data is like DNA.

And here is a brief sampling of more for those who do get it-- this idea is being used all over as ID, Mijo, and Jim Bob sit there and cry that it can't work... just like we are learning more and more about evolution and DNA even as creationists truly truly believe that it can't be true.

http://www.singinst.org/blog/index.php?tag=evolution
http://blog.brainstore.com/
http://www.natureinterface.com/e/ni04/P026-029/
http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=&retitled
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg.000?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg.000
http://www.def-logic.com/articles/evolution_of_technology.html
http://virtuosowebdesign.com/web_2.html
http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_33_206.html
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/newpath/chap1.html
http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1999/vol3/langrish_jz.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/08/02/32OPstrategic_1.html
http://www.ntticc.or.jp/pub/ic_mag/ic028/html/065e.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=wO...ts=G73fMVsxmx&sig=3jc2wU4F8ln6nWU1nqYsbgTqRLw
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_/Good-better-best-The-evolution.html#abstract
http://www.answers.com/topic/iterative-design



And, you are the liar, Mijo... a lying creationist, apologist. I trust that other forum members will quote you if you have anything of value to say... and when I have you on ignore, I notice that hardly ever happens. As far as I can see, you have conveyed nothing of value to anyone... but I'm sure if I"m wrong your supporters will sum up something of value they have extrapolated from your meandering nothingness and jealousy over Dawkins, Southwind, and the many people so very much smarter and more honest than you.

So whether you understand the striking similarities or not are irrelevant--other people understand and use that understanding to their advantage. I think your sad little cries of "it can't work" are, not only alarmist, but very wrong. And a whole world of smart people seem to agree. Thinking that it's too different to be useful is only an indication that you don't see what others see more readily.

I'm sorry, can you please make some argument for yourself, using your own understanding of Evolution, and not dependent on other people? Could you just say something for yourself that might stand up on its own merit with regards to the analogy between the origins of living things and machines?

 

[articulett]

Oh and...

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/NH memes 2006r.htm

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh and...

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/NH memes 2006r.htm

Please, ahem, articulate an argument for yourself that can stand on its own merit.

 

[articulett]

Not a defense of the logic of your argument.



No, not "Evolve" - at least not in any sense analogous to the development of life.




I'm sorry, can you please make some argument for yourself, using your own understanding of Evolution, and not dependent on other people? Could you just say something for yourself that might stand up on its own merit with regards to the analogy between the origins of living things and machines?

I have. You can't hear. The question in the OP was about the usefulness of the explanation. Clearly many, many people find it useful. I have, and I do... and I'm excited when other people "get it". This thread is not about you or your assertions that it can't work or is confusing. The fact are that many people find the analogy amazing useful-- experts in the field use similar explanations.

I think he said it really well: http://www.natureinterface.com/e/ni04/P026-029/

I don't need to make an argument for myself. Southwind asked if it works--many people including me told him it was a great analogy--and we explained why-- I provided detailed links of brilliant people using similar analogies--and learned even more. To me, you are on par with someone ranting that it's wrong to use "google" as a verb. Useful means of explaining things will emerge and evolve even if you protest and don't see the similarities and are certain that it's going to cause mass confusion or that your way is "better".

You, Jim-Bob, and Mijo are arguing a whole different argument. You're trying to prove that it's wrong or not useful... but those who know more on the topic see you as unable to get the basics. -- Information is encoded in all sorts of ways--memes, genes, language, recipes, digital info.-- the information is what changes through time to refine the matter. Computers have evolved-- they didn't "develop"-- most people understand exactly what you mean when you say they evolved-- and most people can extrapolate the wonders of technology to the wonders of life. Understanding how one "miracle" came to be, can go a long way in helping understand the other... DNA is just a code that "seeks" to perpetuate itself... it evolved to do so... when the organism it created didn't--the code they contained didn't pass on. When iexplanations have no sticking power (via use, emotional appeal or something else)-- they don't stick around to be built upon. Those that do... are. Bad recipes are tossed--good ones refined and honed through time. Purposely or not...

But I could say that again and again (as I have)--let's just face facts. That is not enough of a similarity to you or the differences are to big to be meaningful. But you are not representative of any group of people as far as I can tell...except maybe pedants who are sure they know what explanations work best when they haven't even investigated the matter or understood the concept.

 

[articulett]

Please, ahem, articulate an argument for yourself that can stand on its own merit.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm telling Southwind his analogy is good and works for many. My high school students understand selection better than you do... and what it means to replicate information. That makes me proud. Plus I love seeing cyborg boil it to its essence, serve it to you, and watch it fly over your head.

And what is your argument that stands on it's own merit other than the idea that the two are too dissimilar to work? You've already been proven wrong there. Just cause it doesn't work for you, doesn't mean that Southwind isn't onto something cool--that has worked for many.

Oh, and could you sum up Mijo and Jim Bob's argument. Are you guys saying the same thing?
Isn't your whole point that the OP won't work. Haven't many posters and my links proven that wrong? I don't argue with faith based claims. No progress is possible. And I think it's quite clear that you have a faith based notion that the analogy isn't useful. So what. Mijo has a faith based notion that Dawkins is wrong and that evolution is really truly "random". You guys just aren't saying anything.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And what is your argument that stands on it's own merit other than the idea that the two are too dissimilar to work? You've already been proven wrong there. Just cause it doesn't work for you, doesn't mean that Southwind isn't onto something cool--that has worked for many.

Excuse me, but what I did was itemize, point-by-point, numerous areas in which the analogy failed because of dissimilarity. What have you done, precisely?

[Oh, and could you sum up Mijo and Jim Bob's argument. Are you guys saying the same thing?

They are welcome to speak for themselves. They are capable of articulating their own arguments for themselves, are you?

Isn't your whole point that the OP won't work. Haven't many posters and my links proven that wrong? I don't argue with faith based claims. No progress is possible. And I think it's quite clear that you have a faith based notion that the analogy isn't useful. So what. Mijo has a faith based notion that Dawkins is wrong and that evolution is really truly "random". You guys just aren't saying anything.

My position is corroborated by facts. I have shown that Evolution is an unguided process which requires no involvement of any intelligent actors. That is a simple matter of fact. What facts have you brought to the table?