• 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?

Belz... said:
:jaw-dropp

Y... you ... you mean you didn't understand that either ?

Okay. I give up. If you can't understand why you were wrong, here, there's no point.
Click to expand...

Despite your protestations to the contrary, I actually do understand that analogy quite well. Both biological evolution and technological development are processes where the information that can get itself copied persists. However, given the information's finite lifetime, the preceding statement is rather trivial and superficial, because the information has to be copied to persist. In other words, the point of correspondence that the supporters of the analogy tout as being somehow substantive and profound is incredibly weak and almost tautological.
 
Blah, blah, blah, Mijo. Just maintain your views, and all will be fine.

For what it's worth, the information of failed technological development DOES persist. Otherwise we couldn't learn from it.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Blah, blah, blah, Mijo. Just maintain your views, and all will be fine.

For what it's worth, the information of failed technological development DOES persist. Otherwise we couldn't learn from it.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....now wouldn't that technological development fundamentally different from biological evolution, where information from failed organisms does not persist?
 
Belz... said:
Mijo, since you are incapable of understanding my answer, I simply won't give it. Besides, I've given it before and you didn't understand it then.
Click to expand...

You're awfully skilled at claiming I don't understand while not presenting any evidence to support your claims.
 
You might notice that I'VE ALREADY ANSWERED YOU, Mijo. What guarantee do I have that you'll understand anything this time around ? Why should I expend any energy to demolish your silly ideas ?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
You might notice that I'VE ALREADY ANSWERED YOU, Mijo. What guarantee do I have that you'll understand anything this time around ? Why should I expend any energy to demolish your silly ideas ?
Click to expand...

You said that biological evolution and technological development are the same from an information standpoint, and I explained that it was not because only the information that is copied persists in biological evolution whereas the information in technological development does not necessarily have to be copied to persist. Now it's your turn to explain how the two processes can be the same from an information standpoint.
 
Last edited:
Evolution of a bridge design means that the design that is the "best" is built upon, copied, and sticks around longer than the lesser bridges... Gee, that's kind of like the "better" genomes.

Sure, humans can "purposely" tweak or replicate information, and nature has to wait for it's beneficial mutations to happen... but as fare as the evolution of the information goes, it's the same basic process. Humans cannot help but be vehicles through which information replicates, recombines, and is tweaked. Humans are part of the environment selecting which bridge building "designs" stick around and which ones don't.

The few who have problems with the analogy seem unable to remove "human intelligence" from the equation, even though it's a poorly defined term, and, in cases like selective breeding or serendipity it's even murkier.

It's unnecessary, and clearly gets in the way of understanding --as evidenced by Mijo et. al. that imagine themselves winning points by remaining clueless to an analogy that most high school kids are able to understand.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
The few who have problems with the analogy seem unable to remove "human intelligence" from the equation, even though it's a poorly defined term, and, in cases like selective breeding or serendipity it's even murkier.

It's unnecessary, and clearly gets in the way of understanding --as evidenced by Mijo et. al. that imagine themselves winning points by remaining clueless to an analogy that most high school kids are able to understand.
Click to expand...

The reason is that the presence of intelligence (which is not necessarily human) alters the way information can be transmitted in the system. It is therefore most certainly not a lack of understanding on the part of those who disagree with the analogy.
 
articulett said:
The few who have problems with the analogy seem unable to remove "human intelligence" from the equation, even though it's a poorly defined term, and, in cases like selective breeding or serendipity it's even murkier.
Click to expand...
Gee, would one think that maybe, just maybe the religious will love to jump on that idea and come out thinking that there is a so-called god being justified. The truth is that for billions of years evolution got along without human interference and if it had a goal we wouldn’t be here.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
jimbob said:
I would argue differently:

You are correct about a dictionary definition of evolution, but I would say that Evolution (capatilised as in the "Theory of Evolution"). describes biological processes or ones that are analogous).

Lamarckian Evolutin is not the same.
Lamarck:
"The giraffe evolved a long neck in order to eat the highest shoots..."

Reality:
"The giraffe's neck evolved because the proto-giraffes with longer necks were more likely to reproduce."

Lamarck is goal driven. It is easlily turned into ID, as all you need is for God to set the goal.

I think it is better to keep the difference clear.
Click to expand...

Capitalise it if you want, but the word means what it means. The differences are clear, but more important than the differences, which would be enforced by isolating the term, is the CONNECTIVITY created by using the term across context, field and scale.

Iterative change over time. Evolution. It is good for anyone to ponder about chairs evolving, or cars evolving, and humans and animals evolving, and how they are similar phenomenon and how they are different.

Castrating the term is just an example of discontinuous thinking.
 
Paulhoff said:
Gee, would one think that maybe, just maybe the religious will love to jump on that idea and come out thinking that there is a so-called god being justified. The truth is that for billions of years evolution got along without human interference and if it had a goal we wouldn’t be here.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

And if we didn't exist we wouldn't have evolved language, math, science, technology, the internet... it's all part of the same process... information that is good at getting itself copied. If creationists understood this, they wouldn't be creationists. Once you understand how simplicity and algorithms that exponentially increase "complexity" evolve-- you realize no top down design is ever necessary... all "designers" are just recombining and tweaking information that has been assimilated so far... A single human doesn't design a bridge any more than a single person designs the internet...

And the way religious people argue... (not that this is readily fixable) is that things are too complex to come about "randomly"-- But it's not random... it's very much like the evolution of the internet or a city or airplanes... the organisms that exist are responsible for sending the information into the future so that it can be a part of evolving systems.
 
Last edited:
ambnp said:
The spider posseses survival information or instincts like the rest of the animal kingdom. Only enough intelligence to enable it to survive and produce offspring. Only man's information, or intelligence, far surpasses his needs and can therefore send a space ship to the far reaches of our galaxy to gather further information. But his survival does not depend on the spaceship sending information back to him. It's knowledge he seeks. [ more information]
Click to expand...

Interesting, but couldn't the space effort be thought of as analogous in nature to random mutation? Generating "long odds" bets at manageable cost?
 
fishkr said:
Capitalise it if you want, but the word means what it means. The differences are clear, but more important than the differences, which would be enforced by isolating the term, is the CONNECTIVITY created by using the term across context, field and scale.

Iterative change over time. Evolution. It is good for anyone to ponder about chairs evolving, or cars evolving, and humans and animals evolving, and how they are similar phenomenon and how they are different.

Castrating the term is just an example of discontinuous thinking.
Click to expand...

Do you have source for your definition of evolution?
 
fishkr said:
Interesting, but couldn't the space effort be thought of as analogous in nature to random mutation? Generating "long odds" bets at manageable cost?
Click to expand...

It seems humans evolved to be information junkies... they do go through some effort to get at it... that certainly has benefited our species and our ability to learn.

Information in our genomes begat brains that gather and assimilate and recombine information and pass it on and these brains brought forth technology to aid in the gathering, assimilation, replication, storage, and so forth of information. We die... but the information keeps evolving as do better, faster, larger capacity information processors...
 
articulett said:
Once you understand how simplicity and algorithms that exponentially increase "complexity" evolve-- you realize no top down design is ever necessary... all "designers" are just recombining and tweaking information that has been assimilated so far... A single human doesn't design a bridge any more than a single person designs the internet...

.
Click to expand...

Yes. And if no designer is needed to explain how things came to be as they are, (at the risk of being provocatively repetetive) why propose one?

And (why stop when you're behind) . . . Until anyone proposes a supportable manner in which ET fails to explain nature as it is and with all due respect to those who think otherwise, (which admittedly may not amout to much) please shut the **** up about a designer.

First show evidence that ET doesn't explain how things came to be as they are. Until proven otherwise, the "designer" in I.D. is as usefull as a penis on a ripe mango.
 
Are we ready then? Are we going to get consistant and throw out this whole misleading concept that humans intelligently design stuff?
Preexistant patterns are copied, and sometimes there are fortuitious mistakes that get copied by others. What pleases the herd is retained. Ther's no intelligent direction or goal to the stuff we do. We stumble. Sometimes forward. Sometimes backward.
Design is a term of pretension. To claim to be a designer or to have designed or invented anything is an egotistical conceit.

Out with patents and copyrights! It's all open source. Nothing is done on purpose, so credit for creation is just a legal fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom