Intelligent Evolution?

[quixotecoyote]

Yes... perhaps it wasn't the best word choice for the title. But the analogy is about how bottom up evolution builds things that seem miraculous when you don't have a clue about the process. Understanding the process, removes the need for a designer with a long term plan.

So to explain this to someone, why would you use an analogy that suggests the need for a designer with a plan? That's what is boggling me.

 

[articulett]

So to explain this to someone, why would you use an analogy that suggests the need for a designer with a plan? That's what is boggling me.

The analogy captures exactly what is wrong with the 747 analogy, captures the essence of evolution (bottom up seeming "design") and is understandable by many.

The essence of evolution is information creating objects (life forms or otherwise) that interact in the environment to determine what information is replicated and passed on. Agreed?

This is the essence of the Selfish Gene. Information that gets itself copied via whatever means--drives evolution... and has an effect on the evolution of other information systems.

Wouldn't a 747 seem as miraculous to biblical people as a frog? Would it not be a sign of some super intelligent magic god? And yet we know... it's just humans building upon what came before. No one, in essence designed anything from the top down. And the same for frogs.

Although some people can't seem to separate the information from what it produces-- (the genome from the creature it creates... the airplane design from the airplane itself)--once you do, you see that the essence of evolution in regards to what we see (matter seeming to morph over time) is really just information coding for how the matter is to be assembled based on previous "successfully replicated" information.

Nobody designed today's 747 from scratch. Nobody designed today's internet or your city from the top down. Design emerges from what information is selected, copied, and built upon in the environment. NOT the things like houses.... the information that codes for building things--like blueprints-- or DNA.

The analogy does not suggest a need for a designer... the analogy shows that all complexity comes from the bottom up and seems miraculous when you don't understand the time and information honing involved. Humans are replicators of information and part of the evolution of the technology they buy and use whether that is their plan or goal or not. The analogy is all about climbing Mount Improbable from the back instead of look up at the cliff in the front and imagining that no human could get to the top.

Did you watch Eugenie's tape? Did you hear her talk about how the "creationist strategy has evolved"-- isn't she just talking about information being refined and replicated and tweaked based on what works to confuse the most people about evolution? Information that is coded in language will need humans to replicate them... just as information coded in bytes will need computers to replicate them. Information "competes" to see what is copied, and sticks around for further tinkering... this is true whether it's info. in genomes or information in recipes or information on the internet. It's not willful. It's just the way evolution works.

The 747/tornado analogy is wrong because it's jumping up the cliff from the front... when evolution wends it's way up the back of Mountain improbable. God IS the ultimate tornado poofing miracles in an instant. Evolution is slow and steady upward travel as modified by environmental inputs. God is more akin to a tornado assembling a 747 in a junkyard than evolution is.

A tornado is all about randomness-- it completely negates selection over time-- THAT is what creationists don't want people to understand--because that is what makes seeming design without god par for the course... the way all complexity comes about.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So the basic premise of the analogy is evolution by natural selection is not intelligent and does not design things from the top down but neither are/do humans?

 

[articulett]

So who is the "Intelligent Designer" of the 747? Why aren't we praising him/her? Isn't that a miracle? How did all that matter that existed for eons come together to make something so grand, and shouldn't we worship such intelligence? And who is the "Intelligent Designer" of a tornado? Certainly something with all that power must have a designer-- look how it is all spiral shaped--doesn't that indicate design? To say these things came to be by "randomness" just doesn't make sense. Why it's all so magical and difficult to understand, I think god must have designed both. Surely some magnificent intelligence must be involved--it must be top down design-- to believe otherwise is like asking me to believe the miraculous tornado created the miraculous 747 while passing through a junkyard!

 

[jimbob]

Articulett,

when you say that the "analogy works fine for most people". What do you mean?

That they see the analogy and then think they understand evolution?

Are you arguing that most people hadn't thought of technological development as building on what had gone before, and that this OP is a revelation to anyone? If someone hadn't noticed that motor cars are more complex and reliable than in the 1900's, they really ought to get out more. If such a pperson uses the internet and has failed to notice the technoloogical change in computing, then there probably is no hope for them anyway.

The analogy is superficially attractive, that is what is so bad about it. People are likely to get confused. We understand the similaruities, you seem to be unable to see that there are fundamental differences, that in our view are even more important.

There are many creationists who use the very words "intelligent evolution" interchangably with "intelligent design". You say that the ID argument has "evolved" away from using this term, which I doubt, looking at google

Here is one from 2007

A week or so ago someone posted a link to a page which claimed to debunk (yet again) Irreducible Complexity. This is the claim put forth:

http://www.nmsr.org/coral_ic.htm

"Behe's claim that any precursor to an "irreducibly complex" system must be non-functional has been disproven. The precursors to the complex red-producing protein didn't produce red, but they were fully functional, producing green with just a hint of red. They provided the "scaffolding" that ultimately led to the complex red protein."

That's a strong claim. The first thoughts that came to mind after reading the article was:

1. Unguided evolution was assumed. Intelligent evolution was never considered an option. Why?

Or from Reverend D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries in the the wiki on the wedge strategy

"To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose.

Are you saying that ID proponents who accept "microevolution" and common descent, would not accept incremental change over time?

The analogy fails because the only common features between design and evolution are embraced by ID proponents.

Do you really want ImaginalDisc to give you examples where design or engineering involves theose processes that evolution can't?

I can't be bothered to mention many but I will start with a few.

Design can plamn for long term development evolution can't.

I used to design fire alarms. We had to show the probabilities of these failing , based on their component lifetimes. We also had to demonstrate that they would fail in a particular fashion (i.e. indicate either a fault or an alarm and not a safe state IIRC).

This involved mathematically modelling situations where the alarms had never been in and where they were unlikely to be in. This was preparing for rare events.

It was also working to a set of specifications.

Any engineer with a little experience could give many examples of any item on that list from their own work.

 

[jimbob]

Are you now saying that teams of engineers do not count as intelligent agents?

 

[mijopaalmc]

There seems to be some confusion (deliberate or otherwise) between intelligent and supernatural. Even though intelligence has yet to be fully and consistently defined by psychologists, cognitive scientists and other interdisciplinarians, it is still a completely natural phenomenon that emerges form the ensemble firing of neurons in the brain. Anything that has at the very least a specialized and centralized collection neurons is in theory capable of intelligence. This admittedly rather amorphous concept is what I refer to when I say "intelligence", has physical and material existence, and, as a result, has to obey the laws of the universe as delineated by physics, chemistry, and biology.

Now, assuming that intelligent design proponents are just using the "Intelligent Designer" as a "non-sectarian" surrogate for God, "intelligence", as they use it, does not have to have a physical or material existence. In fact, God to them is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, eternal, complex Creator that is nonconsubstantial with the universe and therefore not bound by the laws by which beings within the universe are bound. In a word, the "Intelligence" of which intelligent design proponents is supernatural and therefore completely different from the intelligence of I speak, which is a strictly natural phenomenon.

 

[six7s]

Articulett,
<snip/>
Are you saying that ID proponents who accept "microevolution" and common descent, would not accept incremental change over time?

Why ask a scientist what wooists will or will not accept?

 

[six7s]

In a word, the "Intelligence" of which intelligent design proponents is supernatural stupid and therefore completely different from the intelligence of I speak, which is a strictly natural phenomenon.

Just fixed that for ya

___________________________________
ETA: <woo> my 666^th post!</woo>

 

[mijopaalmc]

Just fixed that for ya

I agree, but your fixes misses the point: intelligence itself is not a supernatural phenomenon.

articulett herself implicitly recognizes this herself when she says:

"Biological evolution and the spread of knowledge are completely the same process when we regard them as systems for the self-replication of information." Smarter people than me have said that and added, "The processes are basically the same. In both, when genes or people try various things, there are sometimes failures or mutants; those adapted to the environment remain."

(emphasis mine)

Now, she can't very well have a basis for comparison for "smarter [i.e., more intelligent] people than [her]" if she doesn't first have a concept of intelligence and, judging from what she has written, such a concept could not be supernatural since she denies the existence of the supernatural. Thus, I wonder why she refuses to acknowledge that the involvement of a naturalistic human intelligence could distinguish technological development from biological evolution.

 

[six7s]

I agree, but your fixes misses the point: intelligence itself is not a supernatural phenomenon.

It doesn't miss the point at all. The point is so bleeding obvious that it goes without saying

Thus, I wonder why she (articulett) refuses to acknowledge that the involvement of a naturalistic human intelligence could distinguish technological development from biological evolution.

Despite repeated reading, and English as a first language, I do not understand the italicised words at all...

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind and Articulett,

We are arguing that design and evolution are fundamentally different processes.
Are you arguing that they are essentially the same?

I will only answer for myself, but I think I know articulett's answer.

Yes, I am, but it's not so simple as just saying 'yes', and leaving it at that. The context needs to be understood. It's a little like you affirming that sheepskin gloves are a useful item of clothing, and me then criticizing you when I find them completely inappropriate on my desert tour.

I believe I have explained the context of the analogy on numerous occasions. The very fact that you have asked this basic question at this stage leads me to believe that you have have absolutely no comprehension of either the premise of the OP or the ensuing supporting arguments.

The OP ... uses very similar language to ID proponents.

I believe this highlights a large part of your inability to comprehend the analogy; you have an aversion to the words used, and they are forming a negative mental barrier. I should not be surprised to learn that there is, in fact, either a medical or psychological explanation for this - seriously!

I think that it is important to point out here that not understanding and not agreeing are two different things. ImaginalDisc, jimbob, and I all understand the analogy in the OP is based on the fact that biological evolution and technological development share the characteristic of "change over time with retention of 'what works'" ...

There is more to the analogy than this, when analysed more deeply, which has emerged from the debate, but which you conveniently choose to overlook when you continually revert to posting like this, namely 'randomness' and 'environment'. I believe the addition of these two factors validates the analogy insofar as the observable effects of the two processes matter. That is sufficient for the purpose of the analogy; there is no need to dig deeper and contrast the detailed processes that underpin this level of analysis. If you do that, then the analogy, like all analogies, will inevitably fail. As the Fallacy Files quote above points out, there is always some difference between analogs, otherwise they wouldn't be two analogous objects.

... we just disagree that that one single similarity warrants ignoring or dismissing all the differences between the two processes as irrelevant, especially since intelligent design advocates latch on to the exact same abstract similarity to promote understanding intelligent design.

If you count carefully you will realize that you cite two similarities, not one, and I have added a further two, making four. How many similarities, exactly, do you consider an analogy needs to be valid?!

Isn't the question in the OP whether "intelligent Evolution" is a good or a bad anaalogy.

No it's not; there's no such thing as 'intelligent evolution', at least not in the natural environment. There is, however, in the 'artificial' human environment, and it does, indeed, essentially form a precursor to my analogy (because all human design has intelligence behind it), but is not, as I have repeatedly explained, essential to the analogy. I have explained how the title 'Intelligent Evolution?' came about. It could be considered unfortunate. If I knew what I have learned from this thread about the implications of using that term when I made the OP I would probably have chosen a different title, and yes, I would still have made the OP!!!

I do not see who the OP is aimed at, as everyone I can think of knows that technology develops over time.

If you honestly believe that 'technological change over time' is all that the OP refers or alludes to then your comprehension and imagination are even more limited than I thought, and are gravitating rapidly towards zero!

I would prefer to ask whether The Designer is omniscient, and if so why are there mistakes? And Who Designed The Designer ( I presume that it would also be "too complex to evolve" if we are). Non of these are earth-shatteringly orignal, but they are not incorrect and woun't confuse anyone.

One trouble is that lamarkian thinking is superficially attractive, and possibly more common in popular culture than darwinian.

Go ahead and start a new thread then.

Cars are not alive, damn, go figure.

And all organisms, except humans, are as good as 'not alive' for the purpose of their ability to question the origins of their existence. Go figure!

I have responded directly to what you wrote, even though I haven't broken down your posts line by line as they don't need that treatment because the premise, which usually appears in the first sentence, is wrong.

You see, that's another erroneous notion that you have fixed in your head, causing you to fail to read everything and spot the nuances that have come about during this thread. That makes all the difference between well-considered, meaningful debating and poor. You should try responding point by point sometimes. That way you won't 'conveniently' overlook some fundamental or important point that might have been made.

I have told you that you cannot dismiss the differences between biological evolution and technological development as irrelevant because intelligent design proponents us the similarities between technological development and intelligent design to prop up their ailing beliefs.

And here's another example of the mental/psychological ailment that I alluded to above that restricts the sufferer's ability to comprehend.

Saying the only thing that is important in understanding biological evolution is the concept of change over time with retention of "what works", which is an aspect that intelligent design proponents have incorporated into the explanation of intelligent design ...

... and another.

The word “Intelligent” or any word that is related to that word, should never be used in the description of Evolution.

... and another. Is anybody starting to see a pattern here?!

So to explain this to someone, why would you use an analogy that suggests the need for a designer with a plan? That's what is boggling me.

The analogy, as it has been developed through this debate, does not suggest the need for a designer with a plan. On the contrary. You would need to read over my posts from the beginning to appreciate how the efficacy of the analogy has been explained and proven, but I have summarized it in more recent posts, which you might care to seek out to save time! I've explained before, at least twice, why, to my mind, a likening of human design (with the qualifications that the analogy and justification thereof impose) with evolution actually serves better to discredit the ID hypothesis than to contrast the two, and I'll repeat it here for everybody's benefit:

Contrasting the two processes, by definition, seeks directly to invalidate their comparison and becomes immediately and easily objectionable by ID proponents. 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.

Now, I'll turn my attention to ID's 'three salient points', as I promised I would, but using a separate post, if that's OK. I wouldn't wish to be accused of obfuscation by mixing a direct response to those with this one!

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm sorry, but you simply cannot twist an analogy to designed things to preclude reference to a designer.

I'll go back to letting ID and mijo handle this kleinmanesque debacle now.

 

[Southwind17]

I'm sorry, but you simply cannot twist an analogy to designed things to preclude reference to a designer.

Not if you don't follow the thread, and comprehend the argument, you can't. That's true.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Not if you don't follow the thread, and comprehend the argument, you can't. That's true.

I'd imagine not following the thread would indeed make it harder to twist an analogy. Brilliant observation! Of course, not being able to read a two line post probably offers you even more of a handicap.

 

[Southwind17]

I'd imagine not following the thread would indeed make it harder to twist an analogy. Brilliant observation! Of course, not being able to read a two line post probably offers you even more of a handicap.

If you even took the time to read the thread you'd know that the analogy has been analysed and explained such that reference to a 'designer' is not necessary - 'twisted', if you like.

As for 'two-line' posts - well, that neatly sums up the depth of your contributions to this thread (BTW, I think 'affords' is possibly the word that eludes you). Interesting that you at least acknowledge you have a comprehension handicap, though.

I thought you said you were going to crawl back under your stone, so to speak, and let ID and mijo take care of the 'intellectual' stuff (not that they're much use at that). You just can't resist, can you!

 

[quixotecoyote]

I thought you said you were going to crawl back under your stone, so to speak, and let ID and mijo take care of the 'intellectual' stuff (not that they're much use at that). You just can't resist, can you!

Not when you keep making dumbass statements that leave you open for one-liners, no. Wise up.

I call call you on twisting an analogy and you say, in effect: "well you're too dumb to do it."

Well no **** I'll come back, stop saying stupid stuff and I'll stop calling you on it..

 

[Southwind17]

OK, now for ID's 'salient points':

Machines do not autonomously reproduce.

Machines are not selected by forces without intelligent involvement.

Machines have no heritable traits.

Those are three of the most salient points you have failed to address.

Actually, if you don't mind, I'll just address two of them for the time being; the 'easier' two. I don't want to waste time on the slightly harder one if we find we can't even agree over the easy stuff! I'm afraid, to ensure objectivity and unequivocality, I'll have to turn to the dictionary (Chambers 1998 Edition) and get some definitions out of the way:

autonomous: (of a country, region, etc) (partially) self-governing; independent; (of the will) guided by its own principles (philos); autonomic (bot and zool).

heritable: that may be inherited.

inherit: to get possession of as heir; to possess by transmission from past generations; to have at second hand from anyone (colloq); to have by genetic transmission from ancestors; to make heir (Shakesp); to be the heir of; succeed as heir (archaic).

trait: characteristic or distinguishing feature; a stroke, touch.

OK, let's start with:

'Autonomously Reproduce'

Mmm ... the definition of 'autonomous' above isn't very helpful; no meanings are given that are specific to either evolution or machinery (design). OK, what say we interpolate the meanings given and go with, say, 'self-replicating'. I think ID and/or mijo have used this term before, so they should be reasonably happy with it. Let's consider what that might mean in the context of evolution and design.

Evolution/animal: I suppose it means to reproduce oneself. But that doesn't quite work, because animals don't do that; they breed with one another. I guess the gist of self-replication, then, is that an animal can somehow cause a copy (or essentially a copy) of itself to come about. Clearly, animals cannot do that alone, without some form of 'interaction' with a member of the other sex, but that's OK, I think I see what we're talking about now.

Design/machine: Similarly, reproducing 'oneself' doesn't quite work. Can a machine cause a copy (or essentially a copy) of itself to come about? Well, also with a little 'interaction', yes it can, just like an animal can. All it needs is somebody to set up a production line by reference to the blueprints and we're away (that person, note, importantly, for the avoidance of confusion, need have no inherent technical knowledge of the machine that the production line is to produce; only the specification of the component parts and materials, and how and in what order they're assembled).

Is there a fundamental difference between the physical characteristics of an animal that has been 'autonomoulsy reproduced' as above and a machine which has, by reference to their predecessors? I can't see any (potential for mutations aside, but that's a separate matter from 'autonomous reproduction' that we might come on to later).

OK, that's autonomous reproduction out of the way. Let's move on now to:

'Heritable Traits'

Evolution/animal: Does an animal inherit traits? By reference to the definitions above, yes, it clearly does. In fact, it inherits just about everything. We can see that just by comparing it to its gender-specific predecessor. They look identical, for all intents and purposes.

Design/machine: Does a machine inherit traits? Well, it too looks identical to its predecessor, for all intents and purposes (lets take the Dell Latitude D620 notebook computer that I'm typing on, for example), so it seems so.

So, on the face of it, at least, machines seem to have heritable traits. But how does such inheritance come about? Well it's easy, machines are made from blueprints, if you like, or, in other words, instructions/code. How does that compare with animals? Well, I've never seen a hard-copy version, but I do believe they are similarly created from instructions, or code.

Well, that didn't seem so painful. I'm sure that Meatloaf would agree that two out of three ain't bad, and I've not even attempted the third 'salient point' yet!

Does this 'address' these first two salient points to your satisfaction, ID? If not, please explain why, point by point, if you wouldn't mind (speaking of 'point', please do try to stick to it, and not get sidetracked with unrelated matters. I've stuck to your words exactly in formulating this response; please endeavour to do the same).

 

[Southwind17]

Not when you keep making dumbass statements that leave you open for one-liners, no. Wise up.

I call call you on twisting an analogy and you say, in effect: "well you're too dumb to do it."

Well no **** I'll come back, stop saying stupid stuff and I'll stop calling you on it..

Ever thought of taking to the stage? Your 'one-liners' kill me man!

How does that rate as a one-liner? Fancy a double act?!

 

[articulett]

It doesn't miss the point at all. The point is so bleeding obvious that it goes without saying



Despite repeated reading, and English as a first language, I do not understand the italicised words at all...

Thanks... I don't understand him either... I have long thought that it's because he never really says anything.

But this is simple isn't it: "Biological evolution and the spread of knowledge are completely the same process when we regard them as systems for the self-replication of information." The processes are basically the same. In both, when genes or people try various things, there are sometimes failures or mutants; those adapted to the environment remain."

Because I quoted that early on-- it's from Osamu Sakura a leader in biological and technological evolution-- and artificial intelligence. He literally says the systems are "completely the same"!! What more do you need for an analogy? They are both systems for generating improvement and "complexity" from the bottom up via replication of the best information/ information replicators!"

It is them, isn't it? Some people just can't get the analogy can they? They can't see that it's how the information that interacts with the environment that selects which drives the evolution--with or without conscious goals, intents, or inputs...

They cannot remove their head from the IMPORTANCE of human thought to see how it's the information itself reacting in the environment that determines what sticks around to be built upon.

There are none so blind...