And you guys are still missing the point: we may not be able to define intelligence precisely but we can tell that it is at work by the differences between how the processes operate. Most importantly, biological evolution is incapable of correcting its "mistakes" once is has "made" them. It functions by removing the "defective" copies from the population as whole because the "defective" copies do not reproduce as frequently as others do. If there is a mistake in a blueprint of a technological design, the designer can go back a correct the mistake and the blue prints of future copies and iterations of that design will no longer contain that mistake, at from that instance in which it was made and then corrected. This is akin to natural selection going back and mutating a deleterious allele back to its original form, which simply does not and cannot happen in biological evolution. In other words, the correction of a mistake at its point of origin is an empirically observable quality unique to systems that involve intelligence, which biological evolution obviously does not.
No it's not,
Edited by brodski:
insult removed
. It's like having the space shuttle crash and figuring out that the problem was the O rings and then going back and making sure you don't use those kinds of o-rings again. Nature would do the same with such disasterous results, because the entity wouldn't pass on anything that deleterious. Otherwise the O rings just keep getting passed on in the same fashion until it shows up in an environment where it is disastrous--or maybe the info. improves before we find out what a disaster could have befallen us. It's the information that evolves-- information coded in the genome or the airplane design--extra junk is removed all the time from DNA because when it is deleted, it doesn't hurt the organisms survival and may even give it an egg because of more space in the nucleus per article above--
You just can't understand that it's the information that evolves based on how the thing it codes for "works" in it's environment. You can't change the plans until you test the product... you can't fix the bugs until you use the product in the environment.
Damn, you just can't get this can you. Just like you cannot get that it confuses more than it clarifies to call evolution random. You think you know what you are talking about, but you come off as such a buffoon.
What makes you think your point matters, when not even the few people on the same side as you are making the same points. You're the one insanely insisting that atoms in bodies are somehow magically different than atoms in objects. It just isn't so. What is different is the information used to organize the atoms into whatever "design" you see. In life forms, that comes from information encoded in genomes--in culture, including technology, that comes from information coded in memes (as expressed via language, math, computer code, designs, recipes, instructions, directions, books, words, signals, pictures, stories, hieroglyphs, etc.)
Information evolves in both cases from the bottom up. There is nothing built by humans that sprung into existence without years of accumulated knowledge, materials, language, etc... all evolved. And technology evolves. If you can understand how information evolving over time based on how it "performs" in its' environment--then you can understand how the complexity for both came about.
But since you cannot understand the analogy--your explanations about why it doesn't work, isn't applicable to anyone except those as daft and pedantic as you. Maybe if you understood computer languages better, you'd understand the analogy. But you can't and so you focus on the irrelevancies and much worse made up analogies on your own. Natural selection can't reach back in time to change information--but humans never do either. They just build on what has amassed so far.
