Intelligent Evolution?

[Paulhoff]

However, there is no longer a perfect analogy to technological development because agents of technological development do make purposeful decisions based on a logical framework both of which are utterly absent in biological evolution.

That is the heart of the problem with trying to make an analogy between tech development and biological evolution. It is also just another back door for ID. Biological evolution has no end product no purpose, it just is.

Paul

 

[Southwind17]

There is, however, a purpose behind the multitude of changes made to technologies during their development, contrasting starkly with the distinct lack of purpose behind the the changes that occur during biological evolution.

Only because it's convenient to have a purpose. Technologies would still evolve if purposefulness was dropped from the equation, as I've pointed out on countless occassions during this thread, but which you conveniently wish to overlook and ignore.

The point that I was trying to with the question about Dembski is that Dembski is supporting the analogy between technological development and biological evolution because he sees purpose behind both.

See - I was correct!

The best way to combat such an interpretation is to emphasize the lack of purpose in biological evolution by avoiding analogies of biological evolution to processes with purpose.

Or, alternatively, by simply demonstrating the flaw in the logic, as some of us have done in this thread.

This can to a certain extent be done, as it was done by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, by blinding or somehow handicapping the agent of technological development. However, there is no longer a perfect analogy to technological development because agents of technological development do make purposeful decisions based on a logical framework both of which are utterly absent in biological evolution.

Again, only because of convenience (see above).

 

[Paulhoff]

The point that I was trying to with the question about Dembski is that Dembski is supporting the analogy between technological development and biological evolution because he sees purpose behind both.

But that purpose only resides in his head, any close look that life will point out many flaws, the mammalian eye for one with the blood supply in front of the photo nerve cells which can cause a detach retina to happen.

The list is almost endless with the poor designs in just the human body alone.

Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

Only because it's convenient to have a purpose. Technologies would still evolve if purposefulness was dropped from the equation, as I've pointed out on countless occassions during this thread, but which you conveniently wish to overlook and ignore.



See - I was correct!



Or, alternatively, by simply demonstrating the flaw in the logic, as some of us have done in this thread.



Again, only because of convenience (see above).

You miss the point, yet again. Once you remove the intelligent purpose from technological development, it becomes technological evolution. In other words, you change the essence of the the process and are no longer analogizing technological development with biological evolution, as you were trying to do in your OP. You are analogizing technological evolution with biological evolution and have thus returned to the same useless tautology that technological development is like biological evolution when technological development is like biological evolution.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But that purpose only resides in his head, any close look that life will point out many flaws, the mammalian eye for one with the blood supply in front of the photo nerve cells which can cause a detach retina to happen.

The list is almost endless with the poor designs in just the human body alone.

Paul

Paulhoff, out of curiosity, do you think that I am arguing in support of intelligent design?

 

[Paulhoff]

Paulhoff, out of curiosity, do you think that I am arguing in support of intelligent design?

NO.

Paul



It can be easy sometimes.

 

[mijopaalmc]

NO.

Paul



It can be easy sometimes.

I think an interesting point to make is that many intelligent design proponents recognize that there are many "design flaws" in life today but insist that such flaws are result of "microevolution" away from the original designed ideal because of the corruption instantiated in everything by Original Sin. In essence, they blame evolution for the design flaws.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think an interesting point to make is that many intelligent design proponents recognize that there are many "design flaws" in life today but insist that such flaws are result of "microevolution" away from the original designed ideal because of the corruption instantiated in everything by Original Sin. In essence, they blame evolution for the design flaws.

A hypothesis easily refuted by an examination of the fossil record.

 

[mijopaalmc]

A hypothesis easily refuted by an examination of the fossil record.

The point is that intelligent design proponent already rationalize away the existence of design flaws, so pointing them out does nothing to refute intelligent design.

 

[Paulhoff]

Original Sin.

Digressing here, I heard from a Rabbi about two months ago, about how people don't read their bible that well. He said the so-called god remembers sin for only 3 generations and good deeds for a thousand generations, seem to me the so-called Original Sin is way pass 3 generations ago.

Paul

 

[articulett]

If you really want to know how intelligent design proponents think and the arguments they are currently using, check out the NCSE or the wonder speech about the Dover Trial from Eugenie Scott and David Chapman. http://richarddawkins.net/article,1778,n,n

It is so worth watching and we are so fortunate to have it available to us--I encourage everyone to watch it... even those who think they already know how Intelligent Designers argue.

Secondly there's this video that shows how natural selection works using a model and evolutionary algorithm. It's simple http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/76262/detail/
Hence it's a great analogy for beginning to understand the more complex aspects of the process without making it look so complex as to scare people away. (Ergo--it's a GOOD ANALOGY--a MODEL)

The evolution of meme encoded information such as the program is the same as the evolution of genomes... only it can go a little faster in a more preferred direction if some of the selectors actively select the parameters... Like dog evolution... or technology... You can't whip up information from scratch...you must always take what has come before and test all tweaks in the new environment so that the "better" designs are replicated and the "worse" designs die off. Of course great designs die of too... or at least some that could have evolved greatness... but we never know about the amazing designs nor the amazing technology that never got to be because it never got started.

I encourage anybody to attempt to understand the analogy because it gives a good tool for dissecting complexity wherever you see it. The room you were typing in was a different space a hundred years ago. What was different.... How did the parallel evolution of assorted information end up in the room and products in that room you have today? Weren't the atoms in your room all in existence 100 years ago? How did they come to form themselves into the matter in your room including you... how did the atoms "know" where to go to organize themselves?

By evolving information with selection via the environment of the "best" products resulting from the use of that information. You are a product of selection even if your parents planned to conceive some child on the day you were conceived. Every molecule is atoms organized by the physical laws of their environment... and every molecule that makes up matter is organized via environmental input and the evolving information that allows them to become "better" suited for the environment over time.

I am not eloquent. But Eugenie Scott and David Chapman are. And they are very clear and humorous as to ID strategies (Randi has Eugenie in the video archive from TAM2) before Dove--and she's fantastic there too.

I cannot make people see analogies they just can't get--but I can point them towards sources if they are actually interested in trying to understand and evolution teachers who use similar analogies and I can explain why such analogies work so well for so many. I can explain why Southwind sounds like he understands the basics of a selection process in building "design" whereas, Mijo sounds like he doesn't have a clue. And I encourage all people interested in this topic to view this most worthwhile clips or share your own.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

I find it interesting that the you insist on paying attention to what other people say about what intelligent design proponents say rather than paying attention to what intelligent design proponents actually say. You have yet to really address why what Dembski says in his blog entry belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what goes on during technological development with an intelligent agent making change to a designed entity.

Why it= so hard for you to explain?

 

[articulett]

articulett-

I find it interesting that the you insist on paying attention to what other people say about what intelligent design proponents say rather than paying attention to what intelligent design proponents actually say. You have yet to really address why what Dembski says in his blog entry belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what goes on during technological development with an intelligent agent making change to a designed entity.

Why it= so hard for you to explain?

I find it interesting that you pay no attention to what people more intelligent than you say and pretend to have expertise on a topic you don't even keep up on.

This is the definition of intelligent design: intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html

It's also the definition of creationism. It would also be the definition of "intelligent evolution" according to Demski if ID lost-- as it did.

Dembski is a young earth creationist-- much less reputable than Behe (who, at least concedes common decent...)

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/intelligent_des_11.html

Renaming creationism "intelligent evolution" doesn't make it evolution. Notice, the definition that "intelligent designer's" use involve the sudden appearance of fins, scales, etc.-- they "poofed" into existence. That isn't evolution. Moreover, the ID movement has already shot itself in the foot by making people afraid of the word "evolution".

Southwind's analogy makes it clear and obvious and unscary. Evolution basically refers to information changing over time in response to selective pressures. It is responsible for the variety of species today AND for the variety of airplanes today.

Have you noticed that no-one is buying your crap anymore? Your attempts to muddle the subject have sunk as low as Dembski. Don't you think that if analogies like Southwind uses would have worked, they would have used it--duh?! Especially since Dembski pretty much said that they should change the name of creationism to "intelligent evolution"???? So why do you imagine he hasn't, eh? And why have no creationists used a similar analogy, huh? It's been over two years since his declaration.

Duh.

You guys are just soooooo unclear, dishonest, and garbled. Evolution is easy for most people to understand-- just keep them away from the likes of you and Dembski and Behe and Hewitt, and Kleiman, etc. until their brains have matured. I hope they have teachers like southwind to clue them in to the core idea behind evolution before the muddle mouthed know-it-alls start inflicting their meaningless pedantry upon them. They'll do fine.

BTW, Do you understand anything you read? Has anyone ever told you, you are good at explaining things or summing up ideas or making analogies? Do you care? And since there is no evident of such on this forum, why in the world should Southwind try and make sense of your opinion on the topic?

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

The people who oppose the analogy of technological development to biological evolution actually do understand evolution by natural selection much better that you think they do. They understand that comprehending evolution by natural selection as a process in and of itself involves much more that just noting the similarities between it and technological development; it involves knowing exactly how far those similarities extend. What you, cyborg, and Southwind17 have done is overextend the similarities between biological evolution for the sake of analogizing it to technological development. Everyone understands and agrees that both technological development and biological evolution are examples of "change over time with retention of 'what works'"; however, we disagree that that possession of this trait is sufficient to make a useful analogy between the two, especially because ImaginalDisc's list of things that can happen in technological development but not in biological evolution are direct result of the involvement of an intelligence in the former process. This is particularly important because intelligent design proponents have show an eagerness to make the same analogy and use the intelligence of the designers in technological development (which you seem on the verge of ignoring or denying) to point toward the Designing Intelligence of God.

Why are you deliberately avoiding what Dembski actually said in favor of people who are ignoring that intelligent design proponents are arguing differently that creationists so that they can use their pre-packaged anti-creationist arguments against intelligent design?

 

[articulett]

Mijo, I have you on ignore, but you have shown a complete inability to absorb concrete answers to questions you ask even when explained multiple times by multiple people and, well, it gets old. There is no evidence that your faith in yourself can be swayed nor that you actually WANT to know the answer to the questions you ask, because, like all creationists, you presume you already KNOW everything there is to know on the topic and don't have an iota of interest about learning more though you will feign such as a platform to preach your garbled view.

For those who are interested in ID's actual new term-- it's "sudden emergence"-- their own are too afraid of the word "evolution" as Mijo's link shows in it's responses-- they want to bad mouth evolution and make people doubt it until they can come up with the right spin to sell "sudden emergence" (or whatever ) to describe species poofing into existence in current form in a "sciency" way.

And read Mijo's link... It's old... but it gives you an idea of the imperviousness of the crowd-- and of Mijo-- and of how they all sound sort of like they think they know what they are talking about--but none sound like each other and none have a clue. In their head, those who oppose them have sinister intentions--rather than a preference for clarity and truth over faith and garbled nothingness.

They will blather as long as they have an audience. Don't worry if you can't make sense of them. No one else can either. They cannot even make sense of each other. For example, Mijo did a little google search as he always does and thought he found an article where a creationist was using Southwinds analogy to confuse. Clearly, Dembski was inferring that scientists love of the word "evolution" means it should be the new code word in trying to get creationism in textbooks-- say, let's call it "intelligent evolution"! Being retarded at analogies, Mijo couldn't tell that Dembski wasn't saying anything similar to what Southwind was saying nor anything much at all... which is why this idea of Dembski's has gone nowhere in the intervening years. Even the "intelligent design" crowd don't want the YEC Dembski on their side, because it's hard to hide his religious intent. Instead, their aim is to poke holes in the understanding of evolution by emphasizing "random" and making sure nobody understand "selection". Why? It's the only thing that works. And now they're trying to co-opt the scientific term emergence... I think the term "sudden emergence" is the current title they've decided to dress up their pig of an idea with.

Like Mijo, they do not understand technology or computers-- they are blustery old men. They have no clue as to how readily Southwind's example IS understood by younger people. And so, Southwind, carry on. I encourage you. And, as you see, many experts feel as I do. Those who tell you it won't work are not in a position to know what works and what doesn't. They are not the excellent communicators nor analogizers nor reading comprehenders they imagine themselves to be.

In fact, people in the field always joke about how creationism evolves (see Eugenie Scott's videos)-- it became "intelligent design"-- now "sudden emergence"-- they don't have facts... so they just go with what confuses the most people and with what sounds the most sciency for their competing "hypothesis". Now, if the experts talk of creationism evolving-- all the smart people here will understand exactly what they mean. And they will understand that explanations will evolve to counter the creationist mumbo jumbo. Neither self replicates... both involve information being refined and honed based on how they "work" in the environment they find themselves in.

Like life forms
and...

Like airplanes designs!

(Don't bother responding Mijo, I'm no longer reading you unless you appear in someone else's posts, and from what I see... that is becoming less and less likely.)

 

[Southwind17]

There is, however, a purpose behind the multitude of changes made to technologies during their development, contrasting starkly with the distinct lack of purpose behind the the changes that occur during biological evolution. The point that I was trying to with the question about Dembski is that Dembski is supporting the analogy between technological development and biological evolution because he sees purpose behind both.

Mijo - have you even read the multiple posts I've made that explain why technological development could progress without purpose if was allowed to and generate essentially the same 'result', and that forethought and intent, as I believe jimbob has now come to realize, are simply tools that are used for convenience? If so, why do you not understand what I'm saying? What part of my explanation do you disagree with?

The best way to combat such an interpretation is to emphasize the lack of purpose in biological evolution by avoiding analogies of biological evolution to processes with purpose.

I disagree. As I've written earlier, I think this plays into the ID proponents' hands because it seeks directly to invalidate their comparison and becomes immediately and easily objectionable. By demonstrating that biological evolution and technological development can, in fact, be closely likened, but at the same time demonstrating why complex human (intelligent) designs use only and exactly the same basic ingredients and do not necessarily have to rely on forethought and intent in order to achieve their purpose (in other words complex human design is absolutely nothing to write home about!), affords a much stronger case. The entire ID analogy then, in an instant, essentially falls apart.

This can to a certain extent be done, as it was done by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, by blinding or somehow handicapping the agent of technological development.

I've just finished reading that book, again, with this thread in mind. I don't recall Dawkins making any such emphasis, or even contrasting the two processes. Which part of the book are you referring to?

However, there is no longer a perfect analogy to technological development because agents of technological development do make purposeful decisions based on a logical framework both of which are utterly absent in biological evolution.

Here we go again. See my first response above. Please answer the question.

There is a thing called a conversation, you say a little, I think on it, I say a little, you think on it and see if I understand you, then you say a little if I understand that point or not and say some more, then I come back on that.

Paul



Then there is the soapbox where one goes on and on and on and on and on and.............

I agree Paul. The problem here is that the likes of ID and mijo omit to 'think on it', or are incapable of doing so. The extracts above amply demonstrate this. I, articulett and cyborg have sought many alternative ways to make our points, but all come up against the same stubborn, thoughtless and close-minded refutation. If mijo fails to answer the question above by resorting to the broken record or otherwise, then I too, will cease to debate with him further. There will simply be no point.

That is the heart of the problem with trying to make an analogy between tech development and biological evolution. It is also just another back door for ID. Biological evolution has no end product no purpose, it just is.

Paul

And you're falling into the same trap Paul, but, given what you've posted here I doubt that you've read even close to every post on this thread (which, incidentally, I would recommend in future, if you want to keep up with the debate and contextualize the seemingly meaningful contribution you feel you have to make), so I'll allow you the benefit of any doubt. My advice - don't become an ID/mijo.

You miss the point, yet again. Once you remove the intelligent purpose from technological development, it becomes technological evolution. In other words, you change the essence of the the process and are no longer analogizing technological development with biological evolution, as you were trying to do in your OP. You are analogizing technological evolution with biological evolution and have thus returned to the same useless tautology that technological development is like biological evolution when technological development is like biological evolution.

This is actually an interesting comment you make mijo. What, exactly, do you mean by 'technological evolution', and what do you see as the difference between it and 'technological development'? A real life example of 'technological evolution' might be helpful to fix any point you might have to make.

articulett-

Everyone understands and agrees that both technological development and biological evolution are examples of "change over time with retention of 'what works'"; however, we disagree that that possession of this trait is sufficient to make a useful analogy between the two, especially because ImaginalDisc's list of things that can happen in technological development (emphasis added) but not in biological evolution are direct result of the involvement of an intelligence in the former process.

How long are you going to hang on to this erroneous list mijo? Yes, ID's list is indeed valid, but it doesn't apply universally, and, indeed, not at all to many examples of complex human design. It does not, therefore, invalidate the analogy. If you can't understand this, and seek to continue to rely on this oh-so-powerful 'list', then you will never be capable of seeing the efficacy in the analogy, and there will be no purpose in debating further. If I can identify to you just one example of complex human design that is completely divorced from ID's list will you then accept that the list can be dispensed with for the purpose of the analogy? If not, why not?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Southwind17-

You are still missing the point. You simply can't understand biological evolution by only addressing its similarity to technological development. It's like trying to understand organic chemistry simply by saying that all carbons are the same because they have six protons or trying to understand diesel engine mechanics and gasoline engine mechanics by saying the engines are the same because they both run on petrochemicals. Just as carbon's having six protons or diesel engines and gasoline engines running on petrochemicals does not explain the varying reactivities of carbon or the different mechanisms of combustion, respectively, so too does the principle of "change over time with retention of 'what works'" not explain why technological development is an analog to biological evolution while intelligent design is not. In other words, one has to go outside the principle of "change over time with retention of 'what works'" to understand how biological evolution actually operates and why technological development is a better analog for intelligent design that it is for biological evolution. That is why ImaginalDisc's list of things that can happen in technological development but not in biological evolution is so important: the items therein are essential differences between technological development and biological evolution that cannot be ignored for the sake of convenience. In fact, the contents of ImaginalDisc's list are reasons why intelligent design proponent such as Dembski think that technological development is such a good analogy for intelligent design; they point towards evidence of intelligent actors in the processes of technological development and intelligent design.

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind17-

You are still missing the point. You simply can't understand biological evolution by only addressing its similarity to technological development. It's like trying to understand organic chemistry simply by saying that all carbons are the same because they have six protons or trying to understand diesel engine mechanics and gasoline engine mechanics by saying the engines are the same because they both run on petrochemicals. Just as carbon's having six protons or diesel engines and gasoline engines running on petrochemicals does not explain the varying reactivities of carbon or the different mechanisms of combustion, respectively, so too does the principle of "change over time with retention of 'what works'" not explain why technological development is an analog to biological evolution while intelligent design is not. In other words, one has to go outside the principle of "change over time with retention of 'what works'" to understand how biological evolution actually operates and why technological development is a better analog for intelligent design that it is for biological evolution. That is why ImaginalDisc's list of things that can happen in technological development but not in biological evolution is so important: the items therein are essential differences between technological development and biological evolution that cannot be ignored for the sake of convenience. In fact, the contents of ImaginalDisc's list are reasons why intelligent design proponent such as Dembski think that technological development is such a good analogy for intelligent design; they point towards evidence of intelligent actors in the processes of technological development and intelligent design.

OK mijo - you have failed to answer but one of the questions that I asked in my last post, but most importantly that forming a precursor to my willingness to debate further with you. Instead, you choose, as you have done so often, simply to repeat what you have previously wrote, and which has been totally refuted, although you fail to see why. You have clearly proven that you are incapable of comprehension and imagination other than by tunnel vision within the narrow spectrum of thought in which you reside. My debate with you on this matter is now over.

 

[mijopaalmc]

OK mijo - you have failed to answer but one of the questions that I asked in my last post, but most importantly that forming a precursor to my willingness to debate further with you. Instead, you choose, as you have done so often, simply to repeat what you have previously wrote, and which has been totally refuted, although you fail to see why. You have clearly proven that you are incapable of comprehension and imagination other than by tunnel vision within the narrow spectrum of thought in which you reside. My debate with you on this matter is now over.

I thought made it abundantly clear that your ability to find examples of technological development doesn't, for example, overhaul is irrelevant to the fact that overhauling is impossible in biological evolution. The fact that technological development can overhaul and biological evolution can't is a fundamental difference that proceeds for the presence of an intelligent actor in technological development and the absence thereof in biological evolution. The intelligent actor is an aspect of each process that simply cannot be ignored for the sake of convenience, because it is the very same aspect of technological development that intelligent design proponents like Dembski use to make their analogies between intelligent design and technological development.

Would you choose to ignore the presence of spark plugs in a gasoline engine and the absence thereof in a diesel for the convenience of saying the two engines are the same because they both run on petrochemicals?

 

[jimbob]

So, you're acknowledging, at last, that a successful design could arise without use of the said 'tool' if we were to simply allow random design changes (mutations) and environmental 'selection' to take their course (and, of course, allowing sufficient time!)?

If you left a collection of automobilesfor a million years and left them for environmental selection, there would be no evolution.

They would need imperfect self-replication

ETA:
All the automobiles could be destroyed, and if their blueprints were available, copies could still be made. There is no evolution with out self-replication.

Evolutionary algorithms require another agent to perform the selection for each "generation".

You need selection, because otherwise you are just proposing random changes which will have no direction and thus no "optimisation".

With evolutioon the optimisation is towards replication; with evolutionary algorithms it it optimisation towards the requirement specification. With random changes and no selection, there is no optimisation.

How exactly does one allow the envoronment to select other than by stopping replication?