Intelligent Evolution?

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

Your evidence is not actually evidence for what you claim it to be evidence for. That is why I don't accept it. The pioneers of flight may have applied the same principles they observed in nature. but fixing a wing fundamentally changes how something flies. That is why we understand how an airplane flies but are still baffled by flight as a form of animal locomotion.

 

[articulett]

Wow, you're really skilled at missing the point. The structure of biplane and monoplane wing is fundamentally different than any animal wing and there for cannot be said to have evolved from it.

Oh, I think it's quite clear to everyone WHO is missing the point. And who said an airplane wing evolved from an animal wing anyhow, Mr. Non-sequitur? (Talk about missing the point!! --major irony points for you here.)

The analogy is and always has been about information being selected by the environment over time based on which information is best at getting itself copied. The successes are copied and built upon... whether it's successful genomes or successful airplane prototypes. Damn, you're digressionary and dense. If you had a tad of humility it might be tolerable... or a dash of integrity-- but instead you just bleat on and on with your pompous nothingness allowing me to experience glee as I lay your open for all to see.

 

[articulett]

articulett-

Your evidence is not actually evidence for what you claim it to be evidence for. That is why I don't accept it. The pioneers of flight may have applied the same principles they observed in nature. but fixing a wing fundamentally changes how something flies. That is why we understand how an airplane flies but are still baffled by flight as a form of animal locomotion.

Oh, my evidence IS evidence for what I claim. Of course, nothing is evidence for your ever moving goal posts, Michael Behe, is it? They used the gliding of birds-- specifically to build the first glider--the flyer prototype--with fixed wings...and they weren't the first. In fact, evolution went through pretty much the same exact process over 125 million years ago-- gliders and biplanes first-- and then the environment selected and honed based on what worked best to get the genomic info. copied. And nobody just suddenly fixed a damn wing... there were generations upon generations of trials and failures just to get to the pre- pre- prototype of 1899. Geez. The airplane wing is NOT irreducibly complex-- NOR is it's design... your inferences are a dishonest way of trying to suggest that they are-- that some special plan or intelligence is the key to the magic of "fixed wings" just like Behe and his damn flagellum.

You are pathetic.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Oh, I think it's quite clear to everyone WHO is missing the point. And who said an airplane wing evolved from an animal wing anyhow, Mr. Non-sequitur? (Talk about missing the point!! --major irony points for you here.)

You presented avian and dinosaur wings as antecedent that were similar in structure to biplane wings, which they are not. The principles of fixed-wing flight and movable wing flight may be similar but they are not identical, and therefore cannot be said to have evolved from each other
through simple modification of information, especially since the mechanics fixed-wing flight have been relatively transparent to humans for the past hundred or so years whereas the mechanics of movable wing flight have only recently begun to be elucidated.

The analogy is and always has been about information being selected by the environment over time based on which information is best at getting itself copied.

And the objection to the analogy has always been that you simply cannot ignore how and why the information is copied and modified for the sake of the fact that the information is copied and modified.

 

[articulett]

And the objection to the analogy has always been that you simply cannot ignore how and why the information is copied and modified for the sake of the fact that the information is copied and modified.

Sure you can ignore it. It's not essential to understanding evolution or the analogy. That's why those science articles and all the smart people sound like me and Southwind and Cyborg and Dawkins-- and not mijopaalmc.

Oh,
AND I can ignore you too.

Goodbye.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

You really need to read: An Airplane is Not a Bird. It is a perfect example if how slavishly adhering to an analogy can hinder understanding and development of knowledge.

 

[six7s]

articulett-

You really need to read: An Airplane is Not a Bird. It is a perfect example if how slavishly adhering to an analogy can hinder understanding and development of knowledge.

mijo-

You really need to develop some critical thinking skills: Your posts are a ridiculous example of how slavishly adhering to a myth can seriously harm your mental health


AN AIRPLANE IS NOT A BIRD by John S. Harris

An airplane is not a bird, and designers throughout the history of aircraft development have had a hard time fully realizing this

Although this is a valid statement, it in NO WAY invalidates the analogy of the OP.

Rather, if you actually read on, you'll see (ok, maybe YOU won't - but anyone with more than half a brain that is not blighted by fear-fuelled ignorance will) that Harris is saying nothing to counter the idea that it is INFORMATION that is selected by the environment over time, based on which information is best at getting itself copied

When designers recognized the capabilities of a power unit that transmitted its power through the turning of a shaft—something that has no biological equivalent, except for the flagella of certain species of protozoa—they eventually found a way to make a lightweight and efficient power-transmission system by utilizing a propeller—a device that has no avian equivalent. Then aviation progress could be made.

For the hard-of-thinking:

• "They eventually found" means that they rejected some bits of information in favour of other bits of information... the design evolved

What Next?

It remains to be seen if aircraft designers will eventually cast aside other bird-model notions. Human creativity seems very often to work by seeking a basic model and then making modifications on that model, and the logic of the innovation involved is much easier to discern once it has been abandoned.

To make new modifications on the model or to adopt a wholly new model or, even more difficult, to create something where there is no applicable model, as was the real case with the airplane—those are the truly difficult tasks of creativity.

See? The idea that information evolves is not rocket science

Your apparent stubborn-ass refusal (or clinical inability) to accept that you are wrong seems to have put you and your apologist cause into a perilously rapid spiralling nosedive of ignorance / fear / ignorance / fear / ignorance / etc

As one who readily acknowledges a distinct lack of expertise in this and many other fields, I suggest the following aviation axioms might help you to land gently enough to simply walk away and reflect on your errors:

• Those who hoot with the owls by night, should not fly with the eagles by day.

• Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

• Try to keep the number of your landings equal to the number of your takeoffs.

• It's better to be down here wishing you were up there, than up there wishing you were down here.

• Keep looking around; there's always something you've missed.

• You cannot propel yourself forward by patting yourself on the back.

• There are three simple rules of making smooth landings. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.

Good luck

 

[jimbob]

You missed it earlier in the thread... but he actually was claiming that the atoms in life forms were somehow different than the atoms in stuff like cars. That was a weird, weird tangent. Atoms are atoms no matter where they are. I can't keep track of all his tangents... and then there are Jim Bob's silly analogies... "how long would it take for a mouse to evolve biouminescence?" What a silly, time-wasting question and tangent.

Why is it silly? It is not an anlogy.

The original poster was claiming that design was merely a short-cut to evolution.

The fluorescence of the mouse, was as the result of intelligent intervention, and the copying of jellyfish proteins within the mouse.

This was possible with genetic engineering, but is impossible with evolution.

The processes are different.

They must be making some kind of point in their head, though I have no idea what it is-- to me it's clear they just don't "get" the analogy-- and so they presume others won't-- AND they haven't a clue about creationists though they use their google-fu to try and dredge up something that they think supports their view-- but they are clueless. And they ignore all links where they might actually get a clue. Why? I think it's because they would rather believe they are "right" rather than risk getting a clue and finding out they don't know as much as their confidence warrants.

I guess that's a big "woo clue"-- faith not alterable by evidence and no actual interest in topics one pretends to have expertise in.

Plumjam is not google. He likes the analogy.

ETA: Dismissing direct quotes as "google-fu" doesn't invalidate them.

 

[six7s]

Why is it silly?

Analogy or not, it reads like yet another silly (and futile) attempt to derail the thread in favour of woo

The original poster was claiming that design was merely a short-cut to evolution

Really??? Since when?

This was possible with genetic engineering, but is impossible with evolution

Impossible?

If you mean mice (sexually) inheriting jellyfish proteins, maybe...

Otherwise your assertion seems to be (yet again) blindly denying the possibility that there is surely nothing (other than global death etc) to preclude some mice mutating (without direct, human hands-on style intervention) some somehow-favourable glow-in-the-dark traits

Improbable? perhaps

Impossible? nope

 

[mijopaalmc]

Impossible?

If you mean mice (sexually) inheriting jellyfish proteins, maybe...

Otherwise your assertion seems to be (yet again) blindly denying the possibility that there is surely nothing (other than global death etc) to preclude some mice mutating (without direct, human hands-on style intervention) some somehow-favourable glow-in-the-dark traits

Improbable? perhaps

Impossible? nope

Do you have any evidence of such dramatic gene transfers in eukaryotes?

 

[six7s]

Do you have any evidence of such dramatic gene transfers in eukaryotes?

No... and I wasn't suggesting inter-species gene-transfer, simply the possibility of inter-generational (or whatever its called) inheritance

But anyhow...

No

Why did you ask?

Do you need me to provide evidence before you can imagine the possibility?

It seems that you simply want to derail the thread yet again with one of your onanistic rants... either that or you really are terminally afflicted with dumb-ass syndrome

 

[mijopaalmc]

No... and I wasn't suggesting inter-species gene-transfer, simply the possibility of inter-generational (or whatever its called) inheritance

But anyhow...

No

Why did you ask?

Do you need me to provide evidence before you can imagine the possibility?

It seems that you simply want to derail the thread yet again with one of your onanistic rants... either that or you really are terminally afflicted with dumb-ass syndrome

You wanna talk about someone being a dumb-ass? Take a look at your last comment.

The point of my asking you about horizontal gene transfer and of jimbob using it as an example of the difference between evolution an design is that the fluorescent mouse is an example of a gene being take from one species and put into another species specifically to make use of its current function. Even though there is horizontal gene transfer in evolution, it doesn't occur because one species wants a gene from the other species or because a third species wants one of the species involved in the transfer to have a specific gene. It happens without purpose or forethought, and that is what distinguishes biological evolution from technological development: there is intention behind the actions technological development.

 

[six7s]

Even though there is horizontal gene transfer in evolution, it doesn't occur because one species wants a gene from the other species or because a third species wants one of the species involved in the transfer to have a specific gene

my bolding
Ummm... I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise

It happens without purpose or forethought, and that is what distinguishes biological evolution from technological development: there is intention behind the actions technological development.

Sigh... Analogies really don't work for you, do they? I do wonder why (but, trust me, I don't need to know) why you persist in this thread.

I readily acknowledge that I am lacking in scientific knowledge... maybe this is why I can't see what harm the analogy can do to science

If someone (other than those in the apologist camp) can enlighten me, then please do

You wanna talk about someone being a dumb-ass?

Not really

I'd much prefer to read the writings of informed, intelligent writers who are willing to describe, discuss and explain points I don't yet understand

Alas, none of your posts fit this criteria for what I prefer... but, of course, this isn't my personal inter-web, so I'm not surprised to see trolls and apologists littering the place with dumb-ass bull-science - something else I don't understand...

 

[mijopaalmc]

my bolding
Ummm... I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise

That's funny, I don't recall that anyone did. I was just pointing out a difference between genetic engineering and evolution by natural selection, a difference that is important to emphasize when trying to explain evolution by natural selection to an intelligent design proponents.

Sigh... Analogies really don't work for you, do they? I do wonder why (but, trust me, I don't need to know) why you persist in this thread.

I readily acknowledge that I am lacking in scientific knowledge... maybe this is why I can't see what harm the analogy can do to science

If someone (other than those in the apologist camp) can enlighten me, then please do

I actually do understand the analogy but don't think that the shared trait of "change over time with retention of 'what works'" doesn't justify the obvious differences between biological evolution and technological development that become important when trying to explain evolution to intelligent design proponents (e.g., the involvement of intelligent agents in technological development).

 

[Taffer]

That's funny, I don't recall that anyone did. I was just pointing out a difference between genetic engineering and evolution by natural selection, a difference that is important to emphasize when trying to explain evolution by natural selection to an intelligent design proponents.

Do you consider selective breeding to be genetic engineering?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Do you consider selective breeding to be genetic engineering?

Selective breeding is also performed with a purpose.

 

[jimbob]

Six7s,

I use the word impossible, because to replicate the particular jellyfish sequences for fluorescence would have such a low probability as to be practically non-existant. Not knowing the precise genetics I can't comment on the actual probabilities, but it would be like the monkeys at the keyboard managing Hamlet's Soliloquy, as opposed to the complete works of Shakespere.

I am not saying the analogy doesn't work for me. An anolgy that equates evolutioon and human-led inteligent design doesn't work beyond the simple fact of iterative improvements, which Behe accepts.

How is pointing out examples of the fundamental difference in the evolution and technological development, an attempt to "derail the thread in favour of woo"?

Te processes are different, and the products of the process are different, and often identifiably so and the analogy proposed in the OP equates evolution with something that requires intelligence.

If the OP talked about development, and mentioned how evolutionary algorithms can produce useful and complicated structures, then it wouldn't be wrong and would have some merit.

 

[articulett]

Improbable? perhaps

Impossible? nope

Plumjam is a total woo... if he likes it, then that speaks for itself.

But mice bioluminescence is irrelevant to the analogy--because what evolves is directed by the information most likely to get copied. There would be no reason for a mouse to glow... though if one glowed a little and it gave it a survival advantage--you could bet it would happen. But like albino animals, its seems like a glowing mouse would make said mouse easier for predators to spot, and so bioluminescence is unlikely to evolve in rodents. How could such information get itself copied if it's vectors were more likely to end up as an owl or snakes dinner? And why is Jim so daft so as not to see this giant irrelevancy while ignoring far more pertinent aspects and questions?

Now humans might think of an idea like, "how can I incorporate some gene into another organism and readily be able to tell if it incorporated?" Bioluminescence became one of the tricks humans evolved to do in situ probes of genomes (by figuring out how fireflies glowed at first)... and humans tweaked and refined the evolving information to see what else they could do with it and eventually they made some glowing mice. Not instantly... a lot of information evolved to get the exciting critter of the glowing mouse... and who knows what use we might find for the "glowing gene" memeplex we've evolved. But the information evolved based on what worked. No one thought "lets make a mouse glow 20 years ago. If humans didn't think it it was cool and keep trying and building upon what worked, glowing mice would not exist. We don't know what will be 20 years hence--we have to wait for the information to evolve based on what humans replicate.

Information that gets itself copied via human minds or technology (or the human sex drive)-- whether it's "glowing genes", vehicle designs, internet access, a chain letter, the supposed secret to salvation (religious memeplexes), or venereal diseases-- can evolve... because their replicators evolved to preferentially select and pass on certain types of information as part of the process of "going about their lives". With or without intent...

Information (whether in genomes, digital format, a recipe, music, or a design) that is preferentially selected, recombined, replicated, etc. drives evolution and brings about things that seem miraculous to those not in the know of the process. Glowing mice would have been miracles from god to the primitive people of generations past. So would airplanes. Not understanding how information evolves to build complexities in matter just makes people prone to see miracles and design where there is none-- and to conclude that this couldn't have come about "randomly".

Humans evolved brains that evolve other ways of passing on information--other than genes and primitive learning... and we evolved machines computers that do it better than brains even...

Don't get drawn into answering their silly questions--they are as irrelevent as they sound, and they will ignore your answers and never answer your questions and the more they say, the less it will make sense-- all their questions are that weirdly loaded kind designed to infer something--not find out anything.

Neither Mijo or Jimbob have a clue about what creationists do and don't use though the pretend they do. If anyone is interested I provided links to Eugenie Scott videos--she's very eloquent and sums up the ID crowd--it's her area of expertise and she was at the Dover trial. So does Dawkins review of Behe's books-- their whole thing is to obfuscate understanding of evolution to characterize it as "scientists think all this happened randomly". None of them go out of their way like Southwind did to show that it's selection over time that is responsible--not "randomness". Scientists use this sort of analogy all the time (as my links show)... trial and error through time with some information preferentially being passed on, and some dying out--like the glider prototype of the wright brothers. There's lots of fits and starts and maybes before you finally get a "step forward" in the evolution of information (whether in genomes or other vehicles).

Selfish gene or selfish meme-- information that is good at getting itself copied is information that has a chance of being part of the future and what evolves.

 

[articulett]

Jims mouse analogy like everything Mijo says shows that he doesn't understand that INFORMATION is driving the process... it needs to do or add something that makes it more likely to get copied than other information.

Ugh... it's maddening talking to pedantic people who cannot communicate and are certain they know more than everyone else. Truly-- I've never seen Jimbob or Mijo cede a point. They want to be right-- not understand why the analogy works for many.

 

[articulett]

Btw, everyone knows that a bird is not an airplane. Flight information evolved in animals (that is, it got passed on and honed preferentially) because animals that could fly a little, could get away better than those who could not fly at all. And airplanes evolved because people have evolved brains that learn from other creatures in the environment... we thought flying might be cool... and it took years and year and lots of imagination and trial and error and imitation of various life forms-- but eventually we got there-- and then the evolution of different types of airplanes exploded once the information was honed so that other humans could replicate with a high liklihood of success.

Horses did not come directly from Eohippuses... But the Eohippus "design plan" (genome) gave rise to the horse. And by the same token, The Wright Brothers Flyer design gave rise to today's 747 etc. The things don't "evolve"-- the information for making things evolves.