Intelligent Evolution?

[articulett]

But how do automobile designs replicate--?

They replicate in an environment of humans who desire to drive...

They require human minds to copy the useful information. Genomes can't evolve without organisms to copy them either, you know.

Automobiles don't evolve... neither do individual life forms-- the information that makes them evolves over time based on how well the things they code for perform in the environment they are in.

If there is nothing to copy the information... of course it cannot evolve. Automobiles evolved in parallel with humans desire to travel... just as all species evolve in direct response to other life forms in their environment. (predator prey, sexual selection, sybiotic relationships, communities, biomes...)

The cars would "die out" in an environment without humans to replicate them, but they would be incorporated in to other environments...and be used to fill new niches...Kudzu might grow over the, moss, and animals might find them especially good hiding places which might allow for their adaption and so forth--

You just don't seem to understand that it's the INFORMATION that evolves-- not the thing. That is true of life forms too! (By the way, no single car evolves in it's lifetime either. Car designs evolve based on how the cars they build are selected for or against in the environment.)

If you left all DNA in dead organisms that never reproduced, there'd be no evolution either... the DNA would just degrade... The info. for making those organisms would die out. It could not be copied. This is more akin to your automobile analogy. Your analogies show what it is you are NOT understanding, Jim Bob.

ETA: Southwind, don't hold out hope for Jimbob--he's better than Mijo, but overly certain of himself. You'll think he almost gets it... and it's true... he "almost gets it", but then he'll come out with something like the above, and you'll feel frustrated and he'll feel more sure of whatever garbled conclusion he's reached. I've seen this repeated in several threads.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But how do automobile designs replicate--?

They replicate in an environment of humans who desire to drive...

They require human minds to copy the useful information. Genomes can't evolve without organisms to copy them either, you know.

Automobiles don't evolve... neither do individual life forms-- the information that makes them evolves over time based on how well the things they code for perform in the environment they are in.

If there is nothing to copy the information... of course it cannot evolve. Automobiles evolved in parallel with humans desire to travel... just as all species evolve in direct response to other life forms in their environment. (predator prey, sexual selection, sybiotic relationships, communities, biomes...)

The cars would "die out" in an environment without humans to replicate them, but they would be incorporated in to other environments...and be used to fill new niches...Kudzu might grow over the, moss, and animals might find them especially good hiding places which might allow for their adaption and so forth--

You just don't seem to understand that it's the INFORMATION that evolves-- not the thing. That is true of life forms too!

But the point is if you leave a population of airplanes alone for millions of years, the population cannot evolve because the information can neither change nor reproduce itself. However, if you leave a population of any organism alone millions of years, the population can both change and reproduce itself. Airplanes need humans to reproduce themselves; humans do not need airplane or any other technology to reproduce themselves. This is crucial because self-replication and by definition life itself is in part based on the idea that there is a discrete entity that given the proper energy can make copies of itself with the aid of outside forces. Technology, as it exists today, simply cannot do that; it requires an entity that exists/lives independently of it to reproduce itself.

 

[jimbob]

Thanks mijo, they need intelligent intervention.

AKA, "Designer(s)"

 

[articulett]

Yes, because all cultural things are human inventions--though they tend to be a product of multiple inputs that not everyone would find "intelligent".

Memes need human minds to replicate in. All units of culture are replicated by human minds and human technology. Duh.

DNA can replicate in testubes or bodies...

You just need a replicator-- dumb or "intelligent" or in-between and a selection process-- and information will evolve. You are way overemphasizing "intelligence" in the process. Yes, human brains are necessary for propagating human memes... just like biological bodies are necessary for propagating genes... But intelligence sure isn't.

Chain letters aren't intelligent. The humans that pass them on aren't intelligent. But the information is copied and can evolve nonetheless. No plan or goal needs to be a part of the process to produce a result. Sure, if all humans died, chain letters would cease reproducing. But this has nothing to do with intelligence or intent.

But, perhaps it's your ego, but what you are calling intelligence is just the way the genome evolved to make a brain that can generate and process memes.

Creatures that make and evolve memes via their brains evolved from genomes because such genomes were preferentially selected... and now the memes they create evolve and grow and become more complex via the same process. And what emerges is evolving technology, culture, language, "intelligent design" strategies and the like.

As cyborg said-- lose your attachment to the word "intelligence" or the fact that a primate is involved. It's irrelevant to the analogy and it's making you impervious to the obvious. As long as you are stuck on "self replication" (which I've shown you isn't correct-- sperm do not copy themselves...neither do eyes) and "intelligence" in the selection process (by which you seem to mean that somebody has a sort of goal in guiding the next step of the process--completely unnecessary to the process--tons of assorted goals, drives, instincts, inputs, wants, etc. are fine) then you will remain the clueless.

Would you rather understand the analogy or just keep propping up your own ego and patting yourself on the back for your conclusion that it can't work and only plays into the hands of the ID crowd?--And neither of you have any experience with or show any interest in what the ID crowd does! (Did you watch Eugenie's tapes... I thought not. You are only interested so long as you might find something to support your assertions--which have been amply demonstrated as false.)

 

[articulett]

Aack. I have to put Jimbob back on ignore too. I can't waste anymore time. I'll let you guys be Behe and Dembski and pat yourselves on the back for your ridiculous assertions and the imaginary notion that you are saying something of value to someone somewhere.

Computer data needs computers to replicate. That doesn't make computers intelligent, now does it? There goes yet another example negating your incessant same old argument. But the data would cease to replicate if computers ceased to be. VHS tapes will cease to be, because there are few and fewer replicators of such... that is because VHS themselves have become obsolete as replicators. Information begets things that are best at copying that information--so that it can evolve-- OR it dies out. (Gasp) Why, that's the same as with biological evolution!

You imagine and over emphasize the presence and role of intelligence in the evolution of information and it keeps you from understanding the analogy. Those who don't do that, seem to have no problem with the analogy. That makes the problem you guys-- not the analogy.

Meanwhile, I encourage those who actually want to learn more on the subject to read the Selfish Gene and listen to those who were actually at the Dover Trial-- Eugenie Scott and David Chapman and Barbara Forrester-- read the transcripts and listen to the experts in the field of Evolution-- there are so many good video clips-- Pinker, Steve Jones, Dawkins, Dennett, anyone writing about evolutionary algorithms and game theory and the evolution of computer languages or human languages. Some people cannot learn it-- but if you have a brain that can and you are interested-- the evolution of the internet has put a wealth of information at your fingertips. And if you can't understand certain posters-- chances are, no one else can either. It's easy to check out their prior posts and determine whether it's "them" or yourself.

If you can't understand Eugenie Scott-- than it's you

 

[mijopaalmc]

As cyborg said-- lose your attachment to the word "intelligence" or the fact that a primate is involved.

Wow, the ability of those who support the analogy to miss the point is astounding. "Intelligent" is just shorthand for the ability to do the things that ImaginalDisc has listed, things that make technological development and biological evolution essentially and qualitatively different. We all know that the analogy supporters are fond of memetics but they have yet to address in any meaningful way the criticisms that Pigliucci and others have of the field particularly about the utility of the extension of genetics to memetics and its blurring of the line between replicator and vehicle.

 

[jimbob]

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?

What part of: "Design can,, ...Evolution can't..." is not universal?

If you show an example where "design doesn't" but accept that there are examples where "design does", then the statement "design can" is valid.

If you show examples where "evolution does", then that would invalidate ImaginalDisc's list.

If you do show convincing examples of biological evolution invalidating ImaginalDisc's list, then I will acknowledge an intelligent designer. (Excepting GMO's, where I know that part of the "design" is human-instigated.

How many generations would it have taken for a fluorescent mouse to "evolve".

What about with a bit of human intervention and gene-splicing?

 

[articulett]

And Southwind-- do check out the speeches at http://richarddawkins.net/article,1778,n,n
Especially Eugenie Scott-- and this forums home page has a link to videos which shows her speech at TAM 2. The smart ones understand your analogy. Those who think they are smart are not understood even by each other. Plus, as evidenced, they just suck at analogies. They can't recognize a good one, because they cannot construct a good one (as evidenced by their every attempt). People have latched onto your analogy-- notice how no one has latched onto or evolved any of theirs? Notice the humility of your opening post and of Eugenie Scott and others eager to learn. Compare and contrast those who are furthering knowledge versus those who are trying to pound their lack of knowledge into other peoples' heads as "truth".

Intelligent Design is all about making the topic sound too complex to understand. But the experts, from Darwin forward had a way with words and analogies so that understanding could be passed on to the masses. The only strategy Intelligent Design has is this semantic blathering self congratulatory pedantry which says nothing at all. They have no real theory to evolve. The best they've got is confusing people and getting others to do the same. I cannot see a way they can use your analogy to support top down design as described by creationism (poof). I have never heard anyone use it. I think Dembski abandoned even the words "intelligent evolution" because he understood it could undermine his cause (to confuse). Evolution needs time and a selection process to do it's miracles... God shouldn't.

"Sudden Emergence" is the intelligent design new "buzzword"-- http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=318&article=0

http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2005/05/intelligent-design-glossary.html

Educate yourself as to how ID strategy has evolved-- and quit pretending you know already, Mijo, et. al.

And it has EVOLVED base on what works to confuse the most people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/05/science/sciencespecial2/05design.html

 

[mijopaalmc]

And Southwind-- do check out the speeches at http://richarddawkins.net/article,1778,n,n
Especially Eugenie Scott-- and the home page has a link to videos which shows her speech at TAM 2. The smart ones understand your analogy. Those who think they are smart are not understood even by each other. Plus, as evidenced, they just suck at analogies. They can't recognize a good one, because they cannot construct a good one as evidenced by their every attempt. People have latched onto your analogy-- notice how no one has latched onto or evolved any of theirs?

Translation: "Nyah, nyah....I'm better than you are. LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!"

 

[jimbob]

Behe accepts common descent, and "microevolution".

Where is the difference between his positing of a designer directing (biological) evolution, and the OP where intelligent agents direct "technological evolution"?

Behe accepts common descent, and "microevolution".

This means that showing intelligent design (when performed by humans) as being an incremental process is not going to be useful in any discussions about "Supernatural Intelligent Design".

Southwind, do you accept that there are fundamental differences in the processes of intelligent design and evolution? Or are you saying that technological development is actually evolution as in biological evolution?

Oh, and btw--the courts DID rule against intelligent design. That's why their new strategy is just to try and poke holes in evolution so that people don't understand it or accept it.

This quote is old and Dembski never even testified at the trial. The judge (a conservative theist) called Behe a liar... which he is-- and Dembski is worse. Try to stay up to date on what the latest arguments are and you'll sound a little more like you have a clue.

The quote might be old, but it is still #5 on a google search for "intelligent evolution"(quotes included), #3 is another ID proponent.

#6 is another creationist, who explicitly links ID with intelligent evolution (this is a geocities site and almost incomprehenisble).

indeed everything, from televisions to cars and even scientific theories, has evolved from a primitive predecessor to its modern sophisticated version. Does the first plane look anything like the modern fighter jet? Does the modern corporation with its multiple divisions handling sales, marketing, human resources and other functions resemble at all the ancient trading entities of the past? Do modern physics or modern biology have anything in common with the primitive theories of ancient Rome? They don't. But in each case a clear evolutionary path can be drawn from the primitive form to the modern incarnation. So clearly a process of evolution ocurred. How did this evolution occur?

<snip>

In all cases, whether it be modern fighter jets, corporations or theories, the progress was achieved through incremental tweaks. Sometimes these tweaks happened quite frequently while at other times those tweaks were slower to occur. Some tweaks were merely ornamental and had no clear purpose other than a 'human' aesthetic (Hence we have flamboyantly designed cars or clothes or buildings) Many tweaks were 'intended', however, to improve upon the original. Some of these tweaks helped the original and some of them weakened it. In a manner that is parallel to natural selection, the beneficial tweaks accumulated and caused drastic changes to the original. What was the natural selection process? A plane that could fly faster and more safely was selected over others. A corporation that could produce valuable goods with less resources was selected over others. And theories that could explain existing phenomena with more accuracy and precision were selected over others.
<snip>

I agree that none of the intelligent design theories are ready for school textbooks. But I think they are ready to be taken seriously.

Apart from the conclusion, is there anything that the proposers of the OP disagree with?

How about more recent evidence (september 2007) for creationists misusing the parallels between evolutionary algorithms and evolution (due to sloppy language in a press release).

Evolution is being used. A press release from University of Wisconsin-Madison was titled, “Using evolution, UW team creates a template for many new therapeutic agents.” How does one use evolution? It continued, “By guiding an enzyme down a new evolutionary pathway, a team of University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers has created a new form of an enzyme capable of producing a range of potential new therapeutic agents with anticancer and antibiotic properties.”

We must keep up the heat on evolutionists till they become too embarrassed to say such things. You cannot “use” evolution. The moment you use it, you are doing intelligent design. Evolution has no purpose, no aim, no guidance, no goal, and no reward – not even survival. In Darwin’s universe, extinction happens and is just as dispassionate an outcome as survival. If you think survival is somehow good, that’s your soul speaking.
The moment a human does the selecting, guiding or rewarding, evolution stops and intelligent design begins. Evolution, as used by Darwin, is not just change. It is a particular kind of change: undirected, dispassionate, purposeless, blind. Darwin and his disciples believe that an evolutionary process could have produced all the beauty and variety of today’s highly-adapted lifeforms. Whether it could or not, Darwin certainly would deny that anyone “used” evolution. Darwin fought against any suggestion by compromising theologians of his day (even his close friend Asa Gray) that God used the evolutionary process to create life.
Such stories do nothing but obfuscate. Evolution has nothing to do with it. These scientists had a goal, and purposely selected enzymes with the properties they desired. Darwin team, the referee just blew the whistle. The penalty for your foul is to yield those two points to the ID team. The title now reads, “Using selection criteria by intelligent design, UW team discovers a template for many new therapeutic agents.” Much better; play ball. Whoops; we just remembered the Darwin team has no goal. Game over by forfeit.​

The interesting thing is that Behe is implicitly accepting that his hypothetical Designer is not omniscient, as then there would be no mistakes for an incremental process to alter. His god is too stupid to get it "Right first time".

 

[mijopaalmc]

As a follow-up to jimbob's question:

What exactly are the intelligent design proponent who allow for imperfect reproduction of forms misunderstanding about the process of technological development?

 

[Southwind17]

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

I realy don't know how I can make this any clearer jimbob. READ CAREFULLY:

I'm not saying just leave the automobiles to rot. I'm saying reproduce them in the usual way, but instead of blindly churning the same thing out week after week, make RANDOM changes to RANDOM aspects of the design. Some changes will will prove beneficial, some indifferent and some disadvantageous. How do we know which? The market (environment) will tell us. If a change is beneficial people will buy the car over the competition; if indifferent people will still buy the car, but the competition (which is also evolving) is likely to prevail over time; if disadvantageous fewer people will buy the car. You will note that NO evolutionary algorithm nor selection agent is necessary for this to happen. This, my friend, is a perfect example of imperfect replication. Not self-replication, admittedly, but that's irrelevant. What's so special about self-replication that's absent from car production, if such car production also involves random design changes (mutation)?

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".

WE HAVE SELECTION - SEE ABOVE! Yes - random changes have no direction towards optimization, you're spot on. As I pointed out above, the changes would be beneficial OR indifferent OR disadvantageous, EXACTLY THE SAME as biological evolution. Selection, in both cases, by their ability to survive in their resepective environments, leads towards optimization.

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.

YES, YES, YES jimbob, you're exactly right, BUT I'M SAYING THE SAME THING WITH TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. Cars are replicated based on their success in the environment (optimization towards replication). THERE IS SELECTION!

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

Exactly. How many Model-T Fords are expected to leave the production line this year?!

 

[articulett]

It's a beautiful response, Southwind. Really.

(But don't hold your breath.)

 

[Southwind17]

Thanks mijo, they need intelligent intervention.

AKA, "Designer(s)"

I accept all of this - except that the intervention must necessarily be intelligent. Robots make cars (and could conceivably deliver them to the market; computers could look after the sales revenue and P&L; robots could randomly determine what changes (mutations) to make to the next model, etc., i.e. no humans are technically necessary. ROBOTS ARE NOT INTELLIGENT!

So, jimbob, exactly what relevance does mijo's comment have to the analogy, that's not adequately addressed in my last post and above?

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's a beautiful response, Southwind. Really.

(But don't hold your breath.)

Except that it, as usual, completely misses the point. Technologies and living things replicate completely differently. Living things are self-contained units that replicate as self-contained units. Technologies are in no way self-contained units and therefore do not replicate as such.

 

[jimbob]

The market is the measure of success that you are using, but somebody is still having to assess what this measure actually means.

Is it "only use those which sell within time x? Or those that sell within time x and at a profit on materials of y%? Or What?

That is where the assessment has to be, either an intelligent agent analysing the market results, or an algorithm that was the result of intelligence.

Robots are not intelligent, but nor are oxy-acetylene torches. The robots will be following instructions. Even if their behaviour has been derived from an evolutionary algorithm, the assessment of what behaviour is beneficial, is the result of intelligence.

To make the analiogy almost work, the computers would have "learnt" theirbehaviour according to an evolutionary algoithm. This behaviour and what constitutes "beneficial" would have to have been defined somewhere. At the end of the line of this reasoning intelligent input is required to make the initial specifications to gibve the evolutionary algorithm direction.

If the factory was making factories, but with imperfect replication, then those errors that made more factrories would be "beneficial" and then there would be true evolution, as then there would be no need for an externally defined specification anywhere.

 

[jimbob]

The special factor about self-replication of the system is that that is the only way that one can avoid implicit or explicit intelligent definition of the specification or what is "beneficial".

 

[articulett]

I accept all of this - except that the intervention must necessarily be intelligent. Robots make cars (and could conceivably deliver them to the market; computers could look after the sales revenue and P&L; robots could randomly determine what changes (mutations) to make to the next model, etc., i.e. no humans are technically necessary. ROBOTS ARE NOT INTELLIGENT!

So, jimbob, exactly what relevance does mijo's comment have to the analogy, that's not adequately addressed in my last post and above?

I think their main confusion is that they truly do not understand that it is the INFORMATION that replicates and evolves... they keep thinking it is the the thing the information codes for-- the animal the eye the automobile the jet-- they cannot separate the recipe from the result... the blueprint from house...the notes from the song... And no matter how carefully explained (and believe me, this is not the only thread wasted on Mijo and Jim-Bob with a very similar scenario--they can NOT get it.) You can hear it from their analogies. Every time they type anything they are confusing the genome for the product in creates just as they are confusing the automobile design or specifications--for the automobile. And all the words in the world can not fix it. They will just go off on a new tangent or bring up an old point that has been addressed. Their understanding about how genomes actually change over time and what it is that is copied and evolves and why is lacking in regards to evolution-- that is why they cannot translate it to technology. They THINK they understand something, they do not really understand at all.

But once you learn who such people are on this forum, you will know who to learn from and whom to avoid because they never really say anything. If you have a hard time understanding their questions or points--it is probably because they do not really want answers, and they are not saying anything relevant in regards to your OP and whether the analogy is useful.

I do not understand what their hang up with self replication as eyes do not copy themselves, nor do people, nor do sperm-- they evolve via genomes that copy that create organisms that utilize this information and refine accordingly over time. Viruses use vectors. As do computer viruses. Both can reak havoc or incorporate into their host with evolving results despite no intension by anyone. Chain letters and fads spread without any specific intent that they do so... just like venereal diseases--they hijack the hosts programmed behavior to do their own information copying. No matter how you show them that their conclusions are incorrect-- that even genomes do all the things that design information does (parallel evolution, insertions, duplications, complete deletions, etc.)... that the differences are not what they say they are... that their analogies are wrong... they confuse the info. for the result... they make any human input imply intelligence even if that human had no awareness of his role in the evolution of said information.

For example, humans do not have sex so venereal diseases find hosts to copy them... however condoms evolve, because humans want to indulge their gene-created strong sex drive without the consequences associated with such a drive. Humans have strong sex drives, because genes that coded for such got passed on preferentially. Venereal diseases made use of that information, but not with any intent-- and human designers made use of that information--first to prevent pregnancy-- with animal guts-- and the design evolved from there. Information replicators drive the evolution of other information replicators.

But they cannot hear or read or absorb or see. In their head they have decided it two are too different to be useful and they will use whatever semantics they can to make that true for them. Nothing can change the mind of the faithful.

 

[Southwind17]

What part of: "Design can,, ...Evolution can't..." is not universal?

If you show an example where "design doesn't" but accept that there are examples where "design does", then the statement "design can" is valid.

If you show examples where "evolution does", then that would invalidate ImaginalDisc's list.

If you do show convincing examples of biological evolution invalidating ImaginalDisc's list, then I will acknowledge an intelligent designer. (Excepting GMO's, where I know that part of the "design" is human-instigated.

Oh, jimbob, jimbob, I'm starting to think you're becoming a lost cause, like mijo. Just when you seemingly start to see something you let go of the rope and it's back to the base of the cliff (or should I say "Mount Improbable"!), just like articulett has pointed out.

Mijo applied the words: "Design can,, ...Evolution can't..." and his list incorrectly. He applied them as if to say: "Design does, ... Evolution can't", which he, at least in his mind, has applied universally to every design that man has produced.

We all know and accept that design 'can' do all of the things that mijo claimed, if you allow it to, and that evolution can't, but, as I've said before (it feels like a million times now), if we can identify just one complex human design where mijo's list doesn't apply, then the analogy works for that example, and it only needs to work for one example to make the case.

Let's go right back to the OP and pretend for a minute that, instead of choosing the motor car, and writing somewhat generically, I'd chosen another complex human design. For the purpose of this debate let's not be specific just yet; let's just call it the 'Widget'. Now, in the context of what I've written recently and time and again before regarding how technology could be developed by unintelligent robots through random changes and environmental selection, let's analyse mijo's list and see to what extent it applies in the case of the historical development of the Widget:

Has the design been overhauled? No, it occurred through a long series of gradual changes.

Did the design plan for long-term development? No, the robots simply made random changes (mutations), put it out in the market and watched to see the sales pattern (selection). If sales fell, the last change to the design was dropped (i.e. that particular 'mutation' failed to survive); if the sales remained the same or improved the change was retained. Incidentally, there was a point, you know, when the Widget almost became 'extinct' because of competitive pressure from the 'Bodgit', but a lucky random design change (mutation) set the Widget down a slightly different path that saved it!

Has the design lifted elements from other designs, such as the Bodgit, and applied them to the Widget? No, all changes have been randomly introduced.

Has the design retained the plans of the form of the Widget indefinitely? No, evidently. The Widget has changed almost beyond recognition over time, and the old plans have been disposed of. They're of no use now, you see!

Is the Widget produced by autonomous reproduction? Yes, the production line just goes on and on, churning them out 24/7.

Does the Widget have heritable traits? Of course it does. It looks very like the previous model, which itself looked very like the one before that, which looked very like the one before that, right back to the original, basic version.

Has the Widget 'mutated', and passed on those 'mutations'? Of course it has, in essence. See the explanation above regarding planning for the long term.

There you go jimbob. mijo's list fails to apply in ALL respects regarding the Widget. All we need to do now is identify at least one real-life Widget. Would you like me to give you a list jimbob?!

How many generations would it have taken for a fluorescent mouse to "evolve".

I'm sure that even you jimbob, if you really try hard, could identify species with evolved characteristics that far surpass a fluorescent mouse. How many generations did it take sea creatures to evolve wings and fly (oh come now, flying sea creatures! Who's leg are you trying to pull?!).

What about with a bit of human intervention and gene-splicing?

Oh yes jimbob, this is an excellent comparison with technological development, such as the motor car. Well done, you're really homing in on the gist of the OP now!

Jimbob, I honestly don't think I can make this any clearer for you. If you continue to do any of the following I will simply refer you back to this post, if I do anything, as it will demonstrate that you have not read and/or understood this post properly, in which case there's nothing more I can do to help you:

Claim that mijo's list invalidates the analogy.
Claim that technological development necessarily involves intent and/or forethought
Claim that technological development necessarily has to have an intelligent agent to determine what changes to make.
Claim that technological development necessarily has to have an intelligent agent to select what works and what doesn't.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Claim that mijo's list invalidates the analogy.
Claim that technological development necessarily involves intent and/or forethought
Claim that technological development necessarily has to have an intelligent agent to determine what changes to make.
Claim that technological development necessarily has to have an intelligent agent to select what works and what doesn't.

But all those things are true. You are basing your analogy on one single aspect of biological evolution and technological development as if that aspect supersedes all other aspects of those processes. What jimbob has done is to show that not only can technological development by definition have some aspects that biological evolution by definition cannot but also that intelligent design proponents already perceive intelligent design as by definition possessing the aspects that technological development by definition can possess and that biological by definition cannot possess. In other words, your analogy is futile because it make the same assumption that intelligent design proponent without simultaneously trying to refute intelligent design.