• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Evolution?

Speaking of Dogs... and Behe-- here's even more of the brilliant Dawkins in regards to Behe's book (and the obfuscation of creationists...)

If mutation, rather than selection, really limited evolutionary change, this should be true for artificial no less than natural selection. Domestic breeding relies upon exactly the same pool of mutational variation as natural selection. Now, if you sought an experimental test of Behe’s theory, what would you do? You’d take a wild species, say a wolf that hunts caribou by long pursuit, and apply selection experimentally to see if you could breed, say, a dogged little wolf that chivies rabbits underground: let’s call it a Jack Russell terrier. Or how about an adorable, fluffy pet wolf called, for the sake of argument, a Pekingese? Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard? Behe has to predict that you’d wait till hell freezes over, but the necessary mutations would not be forthcoming. Your wolves would stubbornly remain unchanged. Dogs are a mathematical impossibility.



Humans ARE just selective pressures that bias the direction of evolution towards human aims...just like sexual selection alters the male toward female preferences in many animals...and predator prey relationships evolve-- symbiotic relationships too.
 
Last edited:
The point is not whether Dogs continue to evolve, but that artificial selection by defintion is working towards a goal that is set by an intelligent agency. This is one variation of the ID argument. Which is thatDevil's Advocate: " "microevolution" works but "macroevolution" doesn't.

The only way that humanity could have evolved is if the evolution was guided in muchthe same way that dogs were selectively bred. The Designer is the ultimite "Farmer in the Sky" and we are her flock. "

That is why I think one has to point out the limits of the selective breeding argument and evolutionary algorithms.

As articulett is talking about the information evolving, I presume she is implying that the design of the 747 could be made up of memes, which "evolved" by a process similar to natural selection.


Genes mutate randomly.

"Memes", would have to change deliberately and be created in response to a need, especially when talking about technological development.

In the case of the 747, there was originally a requirement for a large military cargo plane, which was won by Lockheed with the C5. The 747 arose form this work, when Boeing then had some design requirements for a civilian transcontinental passanger-aircraft. The designers at Boeing did not randomly draw shapes on their drawing boards, and select whcih were the closest to meeting their requirements, They performed calculations (for example how many seats were needed and the space that was to be occupoed by them) and produced initial designs based on that size of aircraft. Of course there was lots of iteritive development, but it is not really similar to evolution.

If someone decided that they wanted to design a 51-seated bus, no initial design would be 4'x1'x6". The inieial design would have room for the 51-seats. This is fundamentally different to how a new meme would arise if it worked in a fashion analogous to genetic mutation and subject to evolution.

Evolutionary algorithms work well, but they are not evolution. Evolution requires imperfect self-replication as that is the only way that selection does not need to be the result of intelligence.
 
jimbob said:
The point is not whether Dogs continue to evolve, but that artificial selection by defintion is working towards a goal that is set by an intelligent agency. This is one variation of the ID argument. Which is thatDevil's Advocate: " "microevolution" works but "macroevolution" doesn't.

The only way that humanity could have evolved is if the evolution was guided in muchthe same way that dogs were selectively bred. The Designer is the ultimite "Farmer in the Sky" and we are her flock. "

That is why I think one has to point out the limits of the selective breeding argument and evolutionary algorithms.

As articulett is talking about the information evolving, I presume she is implying that the design of the 747 could be made up of memes, which "evolved" by a process similar to natural selection.


Genes mutate randomly.

"Memes", would have to change deliberately and be created in response to a need, especially when talking about technological development.

In the case of the 747, there was originally a requirement for a large military cargo plane, which was won by Lockheed with the C5. The 747 arose form this work, when Boeing then had some design requirements for a civilian transcontinental passanger-aircraft. The designers at Boeing did not randomly draw shapes on their drawing boards, and select whcih were the closest to meeting their requirements, They performed calculations (for example how many seats were needed and the space that was to be occupoed by them) and produced initial designs based on that size of aircraft. Of course there was lots of iteritive development, but it is not really similar to evolution.

If someone decided that they wanted to design a 51-seated bus, no initial design would be 4'x1'x6". The inieial design would have room for the 51-seats. This is fundamentally different to how a new meme would arise if it worked in a fashion analogous to genetic mutation and subject to evolution.

Evolutionary algorithms work well, but they are not evolution. Evolution requires imperfect self-replication as that is the only way that selection does not need to be the result of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Selective breeding works upon already existing variation within a population. It simply changes the fitness of particular alleles.
 
For those of you who think otherwise I am still reading this even if my ability to respond is reduced. Nothing has been "won" here.
 
A significant amount of people here seem to think that 'natural' and 'artificial' amount to more than just a human perspective on the organisation of things.

And yet I have been told repeatidly that I'm "playing" to the ID crowd.

W. T. F.

If "God" isn't the ultimate in human arrogance as to the organisation of things I don't know what is. Every single one of you endlessly pointing out "Humans did it!" make yourselves in the images of gods - above, beyond and superior to the system.

And yet I have been told repeatidly that I'm "playing" to the ID crowd.

W. T. F.
 
Last edited:
If what is designed by humans to be useful to humans is to be thought of as a force which selects in the same way that the environment selects... what is selected is useful to humans.

Of what use is the "analogy"?

To humans that is. :)
 
Last edited:
Yes, Cyborg... we already know that the thinking of Jimbob and Mijo can't evolve-- it's too garbled to replicate and bring further knowledge...

But look how others are understanding and adding to the conversation. Understanding is evolving. It can't for them. But others are understanding that it's just information and selective forces over time which are responsible for evolution.

Humans are just selective forces, like tornadoes, and gravity, and venoms, and colorful tail feathers, etc.

They select some information over others helping to determine what information sticks around to be built upon, honed, recombined, and refined. It's information that evolves (morphs) matter over time. Things don't turn into other things... the information that builds things evolves over time giving the appearance of "morphing"-- whether it's creatures or airplanes. It's only the directions for assembly that is changing via what is and isn't selected by the environment.

Sure, lots of human designs don't seem random... they are less random then more than a predator "deciding" which prey to eliminate--but they are not about long term plans... they are just humans pushing the boundaries a step further because they evolved to do so--humans who did so were preferentially selected. Moreover, we evolved to think of ourselves as more important and "in charge" than we actually are-- self-centeredness and inflated egos appear to have conferred a survival advantage on humans. Unfortunately, it keeps some from having their thinking evolve. Brains get less plastic with age so that there is less room for "new mutational thinking" and more attention to honing what has been useful input in the past for the organism.

Brains evolved to learn from the environment--for humans that was a huge leap... just as computers are a huge leap... because it gave a way of transmitting information across boundaries through time and to direct it for human centered aims. Other animals and plants have to wait for selection to hone genomes to adapt to changes and evolve-- But we have brains and now computers to store, copy, tweak, refine, and hone information with each other which has allowed us to be much stronger selectors of information. But bad ideas and technology can spread just as well as good if it has a trick for getting itself copied. Gangs spread because they capitalize on primitive tribalism-- group selection-- good guys and bad guys... same with religion...

But it's all from the bottom up-- and there is no-one in charge. As the failure of psychics shows-- nobody knows which information will bring about the complex things of tomorrow and which are bound to die out like VCRs.

Information that is the best at getting itself selected (replicated) drives evolution... even if it some of it's selectors think they are in charge. It just so happens that "thinking you are passing on valuable information" is a good way to get humans to replicate that information so that it evolves.

(Anyhow, I'm glad to see you weigh in cyborg. Not everyone can be as smart as you--but lots of people can learn. Just not Mijo or Jimbob--plus, their obtuseness once made wonder if the communication problem was me--your weighing in has shown me and others that the problem is those who don't understand the analogy--not the analogy itself. The clueless ones never know they are the clueless ones, while the competent people always wonder if it is them responsible for the communication snafus.)
 
Unfortunately, it keeps some from having their thinking evolve. Brains get less plastic with age so that there is less room for "new mutational thinking" and more attention to honing what has been useful input in the past for the organism.
Click to expand...

Rubbish! My brain does not tell me what to do - I do! I'm special - I don't fit in no stinkin' physical system. Please - I'm a man, not a machine. Totally different words.
 
President Bush said:
If what is designed by humans to be useful to humans is to be thought of as a force which selects in the same way that the environment selects... what is selected is useful to humans.

Of what use is the "analogy"?

To humans that is. :)
Click to expand...

If it doesn't work for you, it's likely that no amount of explaining will do. The fact that it works for so many might clue you into the fact that the problem is you. If you've been following this thread and you still don't get it-- then I would say you can't get it. If you notice that creationists go out of their way to obfuscate understanding of "selection of information over time" and, instead, focus on "randomness"-- you will see why your contributions to this thread are exactly the nothingness creationists hope for.

Confusion rather than clarity is the goal of creationists.

The analogy clarifies that evolution is always from the bottom up-- it is always driven by information selected over time... there never is a god necessary--even for the things that would seem miraculous to generations past. Even our gods are built from the bottom up in the same fashion. Information that is best at getting itself copied survives to evolve. It doesn't care whether humans think they are in control of the information or whether humans assembled the information or whether humans copy it.

If obfuscating this understanding keeps god alive, those who have a vested interest in keeping god alive will further the obfuscation.
 
articulett said:
But look how others are understanding and adding to the conversation. Understanding is evolving. It can't for them. But others are understanding that it's just information and selective forces over time which are responsible for evolution.
Click to expand...

Equivocating "evolving" again, I see.

Brains evolved to learn from the environment
Click to expand...

False. Brains evolved and are good at learning from the environment. They did not evolve "to" do anything. There is no pupose behind evolution.
 
Equivocating "evolving" again, I see.
Click to expand...

Hey, articullet, ID needs to tell you dogs aren't cats again.

Where would we be without knowing that eh ID?

They did not evolve "to" do anything. There is no pupose behind evolution.
Click to expand...

Yet, to you, there is a real purpose to what we do inspite of this.

And yet I'm playing to the ID crowd.

Hmm....
 
cyborg said:
Rubbish! My brain does not tell me what to do - I do! I'm special - I don't fit in no stinkin' physical system. Please - I'm a man, not a machine. Totally different words.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeedy do. You are a man. An INTELLIGENT designer... a veritable God to generations past. You are responsible for magic and miracles that you whipped up from nothing at all. You chose your brain and your body and your will and intelligence and preferences and you use them to work magic in this little corner of the universe. You are here for a purpose...to be a selection force that is beyond nature... doing amazing things that lie outside the realm of other inputs.

:)

(Little kids go through a stage when they really don't realize that there was a world before them. And I suppose that all life IS "the reason for life" as far as it is concerned. The world does revolve around every conscious being from their point in space-time. How could it not? But some grown ups are able to gain perspective and talk over the heads of the children who cannot...allowing others to clue in when/if they are interested.)
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
Hey, articullet, ID needs to tell you dogs aren't cats again.

Where would we be without knowing that eh ID?



Yet, to you, there is a real purpose to what we do inspite of this.

And yet I'm playing to the ID crowd.

Hmm....
Click to expand...

Firstly, I did not accuse you of deliberately promoting Intelligent Design. Secondly, you're still ignoring the differences between the intention to create change in designers, and an intention-less system of Evolution.
 
Secondly, you're still ignoring the differences between the intention to create change in designers, and an intention-less system of Evolution.
Click to expand...

FOR FLIPS SAKE YES.

GOD DAMN. THAT IS THE POINT. TO IGNORE. TO ABSTRACT. TO ANALOGISE.

*************************************UGH*************************************
 
President Bush said:
If what is designed by humans to be useful to humans is to be thought of as a force which selects in the same way that the environment selects... what is selected is useful to humans.

Of what use is the "analogy"?

To humans that is. :)
Click to expand...


articulett said:
If it doesn't work for you, it's likely that no amount of explaining will do. The fact that it works for so many might clue you into the fact that the problem is you. If you've been following this thread and you still don't get it-- then I would say you can't get it. If you notice that creationists go out of their way to obfuscate understanding of "selection of information over time" and, instead, focus on "randomness"-- you will see why your contributions to this thread are exactly the nothingness creationists hope for.

Confusion rather than clarity is the goal of creationists.

The analogy clarifies that evolution is always from the bottom up-- it is always driven by information selected over time... there never is a god necessary--even for the things that would seem miraculous to generations past. Even our gods are built from the bottom up in the same fashion. Information that is best at getting itself copied survives to evolve. It doesn't care whether humans think they are in control of the information or whether humans assembled the information or whether humans copy it.

If obfuscating this understanding keeps god alive, those who have a vested interest in keeping god alive will further the obfuscation.
Click to expand...


If no one arguing against the "analogy" is arguing for "God"... how can the use of the "analogy" be what you say?

Why should anyone believe the "analogy" is information to be selected? :)
 
cyborg said:
FOR FLIPS SAKE YES.

GOD DAMN. THAT IS THE POINT. TO IGNORE. TO ABSTRACT. TO ANALOGISE.

*************************************UGH*************************************
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that living things do not take inovations from one species and apply to another, as it ruotinely done with machines, for example?

Oh, and despite the fact that machines are not self-replicating?

Silly me, I also forgot to point out that machines plans are parsed and edited by intelligent designers who make deliberate choices, which is also a glaring distinction.

Hmmm, I seem to recall typing up a list of inherent differences you have failed to address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom