Intelligent Evolution?

[Belz...]

Is there are a dim and distant dodo or Tasmanian devil still waiting to be discovered somewhere? I doubt it, so I'm prepared to wager that they've gone extinct.

The Tasmanian Devil is not extinct, yet.

 

[Belz...]

Reading deficiency ?

It’s widely acknowledged that many major advancements in technology and medicine have come about through chance or fluke.

But seriously now...if all of the major inventions and innovations over all of history were just found by chance, then why is engineering a profession?

...

Let's leave ad hominem arguments out of this debate.

Er... that wasn't an ad hominem. Do you know what those are ?

Translation: "I only listen to people who agree with me and tune everyone else out."

Translation: "I didn't read Articulett's post, but I'm sure I hate her."

 

[quixotecoyote]

The majority of technology is invented and designed by intelligent actors.
Evolution is not.
Using technological development as an analogy for evolution therefore suggests that evolution is designed by intelligent actor(s).
Guess who else uses this analogy?
ID'ers.
Guess why?
Because it links to their argument much more strongly than it links to a proper description of evolution.

 

[chippy]

Regarding the field of medicine...my brother used to work for the pharmaceutical division of 3M, so I know a little of the background of that profession. If you ever want to release a drug to the public, you have to put in about 5 years of work.

Now, of course we know that it's entirely possible that great medicines such as penicillin can be discovered by chance. However, that's just the first step. How much of part A should be mixed with part B? Maybe we need a little of part C, or D, or E, or all the way to Z? There's tons of tweaking that happens before this drug or medicine can be introduced to the public and used for the greater good. And guess what? None of that tweaking happens by chance. That tweaking happens by the guiding hands of the biologists or medical professionals who are developing the drug. Though the first step may have happened by chance, the final result has always been worked on heavily such that you simply cannot deny that some sort of intelligent design was involved in their development.

Besides, drugs are just ONE example of progress made by humanity, which is such a broad topic anyway. I think we can all agree that cars, airplanes, bridges, cell phones, and other highly sophisticated inventions were NOT created by chance.

 

[six7s]

Yes, TVs and airplanes are better now than they were in the past. That's because engineers sat down and thought up ways to make them better. That's intelligent design.

Therefore, I have trouble understanding the point here

Perhaps if you read more of the thread, you will see that the analogy relates to the passing of information

The TVs and aeroplanes of today ARE better (thanks to clever engineers meeting a demand) but they were NOT 'designed' by John Logie Baird and the Wright Brothers, i.e. unlike an 'intelligent designer' of the ID variety (aka some sky-daddy) they did not write all of the information required to build a widescreen TV or a jumbo jet

Holy ****** Why are you being so mean?

Again, if you read more of the thread, you might understand

Mijo is a troll who delights in denigrating anyone who dares to challenge his distorted world view, one he 'supports' by quoting any tangentially related excerpt from any field but the one under discussion

There is, of course, a chance that mijo is right and all of the experts are wrong - in which case his accusations of lying are appropriate. Unfortunately, the accusations themselves (and the corrobororating 'evidence') are so garbled that the only discernible message is one of fear-fuelled venom

 

[articulett]

Let's leave ad hominem arguments out of this debate.

Does this article say anything about cars, computers, bridges, skyscrapers, cell phones, iPods, solar power plants, nuclear power plants, airplanes, or other major inventions that we use on a daily basis?

I believe you are the one who change "many major advancement" to "most major inventions"-- that IS dishonest... and you opened with a silly ad hom, Mr. Irony. You pretend to have expertise you do not have and to be up on a topic and thread you clearly are not up on. Moreover, it isn't a debate. The OP asked if the analogy was useful. The majority weighed in that it was indeed useful... and they quoted experts who use similar analogies. A few self appointed experts who no one considers knowledgeable on the subject, didn't "get" the analogy or understand how it can work. None of these people are very well versed on the topic or the latest development nor do they follow the links showing the experts using very similar analogies.

Information systems evolve... Whether those are information systems coding for equine or airplanes... They evolve from the bottom up... with or without intent based on information that has the ability to get replicated and/or recombined in whatever environment it happens to find itself in.

Now, I'm going to have to put you on ignore since you seem to imagine yourself an expert but you sound like the muddle mouthed pedants...not the actual experts who have been multiply quoted and linked in this thread... Moreover, you insult those who are much smarter than you and are blind to your own obnoxious pedantry like others of your ilk. I'm sure the smart people will quote you should you say anything intelligent, though I shan't hold my breath. The others disappear completely when there's no one left to prop up their silly notion that others consider their input to be informative in any way. We already know they can't learn-- they are too sure that they know everything already. Kind of like you. They're fun to goad and talk about... not so good for learning or discussing or finding out more. They don't recognize their areas of incompetence and, as my sig notes, this ignorance begets a rather annoying arrogance. And they can't seem to have coherent conversations with each other.

So, naturally they become fodder for our own amusement until we put them on ignore. But first we like to give other new members a heads up lest they think the pedants represent the majority of JREF. JFEF has lots of brilliant people... and a few who think they are experts though no one else recognizes them as such.

 

[chippy]

...

You're dot-dot-dotting to my statement where I said "all". ok, let's suppose I said "many". If MANY inventions are made by chance, then why is engineering a profession? As an engineer, do I spend 90% of each day letting inventions fall on my desk, and then the other 10% coming up with them on my own?

Er... that wasn't an ad hominem. Do you know what those are ?

I would think that a perfect example of an ad hominem argument would be calling someone "dishonest" rather than addressing their arguments, which is exactly what happened here.

 

[chippy]

Perhaps if you read more of the thread, you will see that the analogy relates to the passing of information

The TVs and aeroplanes of today ARE better (thanks to clever engineers meeting a demand) but they were NOT 'designed' by John Logie Baird and the Wright Brothers, i.e. unlike an 'intelligent designer' of the ID variety (aka some sky-daddy) they did not write all of the information required to build a widescreen TV or a jumbo jet

But think of the very first airplane. It was actually built with human hands, was it not?

Again, if you read more of the thread, you might understand

Mijo is a troll who delights in denigrating anyone who dares to challenge his distorted world view, one he 'supports' by quoting any tangentially related excerpt from any field but the one under discussion

There is, of course, a chance that mijo is right and all of the experts are wrong - in which case his accusations of lying are appropriate. Unfortunately, the accusations themselves, and the corrobororating 'evidence', is so garbled that the only discernible message is one of fear-fuelled venom

So, may I ask why you stoop to his level then?

 

[articulett]

I suppose it was; I apologize. Knowing how well we can debate when we're all angry, how about we decide to not be angry and just focus on the arguments, not the people?

It's not an argument. It's just about an analogy-- does it work? It does work... it works on many levels and is used by many people.

Human intelligence evolved... it's part of the environment. I don't want to re-explain stuff that has been gone over ad nauseum in this thread. If you want to understand the analogy, there is more than enough information for most people to be able to do so in this thread. If you want to win an argument in your head about the analogy being useless, then all discussion is futile, right? The fact is that the analogy is correct... the stuff that the OP wrote regarding fluke being a part of evolving information systems is correct-- whether you want to pretend he didn't say it or not. Your contention that it is not correct and your mistatement of what he said, doesn't add to anyone's understanding. Your inability to understand the analogy does not lead to any further understanding either. You are being provocative while being uninformed. You might want to clarify your goals before offering your input.

You may have something to learn while what you have to say may not further the discussion.

 

[articulett]

The Tasmanian Devil is not extinct, yet.

Close though. It's nearest relative the Tasmanian Tiger went extinct in 1936.

 

[chippy]

Well how is this analogy used? Am I correct in assuming that this analogy refutes the intelligent design argument because technological advancement is an example of something that evolved WITHOUT intelligent design? Is that right?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo is a troll who delights in denigrating anyone who dares to challenge his distorted world view, one he 'supports' by quoting any tangentially related excerpt from any field but the one under discussion

There is, of course, a chance that mijo is right and all of the experts are wrong - in which case his accusations of lying are appropriate. Unfortunately, the accusations themselves (and the corrobororating 'evidence') are so garbled that the only discernible message is one of fear-fuelled venom

Wow, that's a steaming heap sh....projection. You might actually want to go back and read how articulett et al have actually responded to me (e.g., regeularly implying that I'm lying or stupid). I admit that I have recently and further in the past called articulett a liar, but that it because she has insisted on deliberate and maliciously misrepresenting my arguments, as I recently demonstrated with her excursus of my explanation of carbon.

 

[articulett]

Chippy, you are confusing the information for what it codes for. Animals don't evolve... they stay the same species they are born... it's the information that evolves based on what is good at getting itself copied... there has been an evolution of information leading to todays airplanes based on the first successful airplane... which was based on lots of trial and error and a honing of other designs.... and each step of the process or honing can involve chance... what do we tweak next? how should we shape the wings? What gives birds lift? etc. The analogy is about information. There is a whole section of this thread on the evolution of aircraft... how the first successful design evolved (which encouraged other humans to replicate that design) and how the later iterations evolved from the successes therein. That is what is going on in evolution.

I don't want to rehash the whole thing, especially if you aren't familiar with "selfish genes" or the notion of a meme or if you can't understand what the linked articles are saying, because it would be superflous. All of your concerns have been addressed. If they still don't make sense, then they probably won't. But that isn't because the analogy is bad... it's because of a deficiency in your own understanding on the topic. Moreover, it's a lack of understanding how Intelligent Design proponents obfuscate. Humans notice designs, patterns, etc. And so we presume they have a reason or meaning... how could something like a rabbit a symbiote come to exist if not for a plan--? But there doesn't need to be a big plan... if organisms do what they are programmed to do via their genes... those genes get copied... and if humans do what they are programmed to do via their genes, their memes (self created information systems like language, math, technological designs, the internet)-- also get copied, refined, honed, recombined, and reassembled over time to create increasing complexity as hone by the environment. Humans evolved to be "information sharers, copiers, recombiners, etc... because those who did so, preferentially survived". That is why our technology goes "forward" towards increasing efficiency or "complexity" or whatever you want to call it... the same as life and ecosystems evolving forward.

It is the information that evolves. Not things. Human intent is part of the environment, just like sexual impulses, and earthquakes, and predators, and prey, and food sources, etc. It's not outside of "nature"-- nor is human intelligence that replicates and tweaks, and recombines information so that it might go further.

 

[six7s]

But think of the very first airplane. It was actually built with human hands, was it not?

It was indeed. However, as mentioned above, if you actually read the salient points in this thread (admittedly an onerous task) you would (hopefully) understand that your point is irrelevant to the analogy

So, may I ask why you stoop to his level then?

I won't pretend that my posts above deal some rather low blows. However, they are not 'fear-fuelled'. Instead, they stem from a growing sense of loathing for someone who knowingly and incessantly uses half-truths (i.e lies) and full-on nonsense to divert this thread from at least one otherwise fascinating, thought-provoking and constructive aim, which is educate and share knowledge with those (like me) who know little other than 'given the right info, I can learn'

If this thread was free of mijo and the other woo-apologists (i.e. those who pretend, at least to themselves, that they know what they are waffling on about), this thread would be great, given that it has the untiring input from some great minds who, in the spirit of science (cf woo), are evidently open to 'new' facts/ideas/etc and are more than willing to share/refine them with people like me

Get an idea why I 'stooped so low'?

Sure... it ain't an excuse... but its the reason

 

[mijopaalmc]

The frustrating thing about six7s claims about my alleged lying ways is no evidence is offered to actually back them up.

 

[chippy]

Perhaps my thoughts are best expressed with an example.

Let's say that nothing has been invented, ever, just to clear the slate. I picked up this black rock and scratched it against a wall, and it left a residue. So I think "hey, I just stumbled across a great writing tool!"

Now, were it not for me picking up this black rock and scratching it against something, it would just be a rock, sitting on the ground. But due to my work, I have discovered a use for this rock, and thus an advancement in technology has been made. Now, this rock has always had the potential to create a mark on the wall. Nobody will argue that. But if it were not for some sort of intelligent intervention, this discovery would never had been made.

The fact that this rock can be used as a writing tool is not something that EVOLVED. The information that "black rock can be a writing tool" is just a characteristic of nature, not something that came about all of the sudden. It always has been something that can be a writing tool, and it always will be. No evolution.

However, when intelligent beings intervene and begin to use these objects, then advancements in technology are made. But they never would have been made if not for the actions of that intelligent being.

 

[chippy]

I won't pretend that my posts above deal some rather low blows. However, they are not 'fear-fuelled'. Instead, they stem from a growing sense of loathing....

Then I encourage you to pursue a belief system that fills you with love rather than with loathing. It will improve your life.

 

[mijopaalmc]

chippy-

The flaw in your example is that you could have just as easily discovered the marking abilities of the black rock by accidentally dropping or rubbing it against the other rock.

 

[chippy]

chippy-

The flaw in your example is that you could have just as easily discovered the marking abilities of the black rock by accidentally dropping or rubbing it against the other rock.

But who was the one who dropped the rock? And who was the one who noticed the end result and deemed that result significant?

 

[articulett]

But who was the one who dropped the rock? And who was the one who noticed the end result and deemed that result significant?

Humans evolved to notice ways of using things in their environment in ways that benefit them... and to learn via imitation of others doing the same... they evolved mirror neurons and language to help them in these endeavors...

Spiders evolved web-making capabilities... and ants evolved colony making capabilities as well as social organizations.... what you refer to as intelligence is part of the "nature" of humans... it's not extra... even chimps have evolved tool making and weapon making... and they imitate units of culture or memes.
our technologies are an evolution of this.