mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
So you think that it is valid to argue fallaciously?
Intelligent Evolution?
- Thread starter Southwind17
- Start date
So you think that it is valid to argue fallaciously?
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
The problem is that the analogy is the only that close to a creationist argument in this thread, likening biological evolution to an intelligently directed process as it does.
Last edited:
Hah! And put myself out of a job? Don't ask the selfish gene about the goal of his survival, he may want to buy a new car.
Seriously, your question can be parsed on the basis of timeframe. Designers, at least in a captitalist structure need to feel rewarded to push things forward. The marketplace has replaced "survival" with "compensation", but it is no less real.
But designers die. What remains is the advancement of technology, or memeology, which in theory benefits everyone. Patents and copyrights allow an inventor or designer to benefit from efforts which may not have short term results. If you know the process you must know that some products take a week to commercialize and some things take a decade. If the I.P. has no rights, then you remove incentive for creating things that have a long gestation.
From the hip I might suggest that the ET analog to patent rights would be Survival itself. Royalties are payed, for the most part, to inventors/designers that create products that succeed in being reproduced, thus a royalty would be bestowed on the progenitor of a successful "phenotype".
This being said, it's probably wise to bear in mind that analogies between commerce and ET are seductive, but are still just analogies. Hitler using Darwin for Aryanism comes to mind.
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
Mijo, you are posting nonsense - literally speaking
If you have a point to make, please at least try to phrase your words in orthodox English
No, I think that without an argument there can be no fallacious argument.
You are a cartoon character. Wiley Coyote is what I'm thinking.
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
For you six7s:
Hmmmm....now wouldn't that make technological development fundamentally different from biological evolution, where information from failed organisms does not persist?
The problem is that the analogy it is the only thing that is close to a creationist argument in this thread, likening biological evolution to an intelligently directed process as it does.
Now get a life and critique my arguments.
Last edited:
Having nothing more to say never seems to shut you up. Outa here.
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
This still doesn't parse mijo
Got one, thanks
Do you mean that you have posted some new arguments? Ones that haven't been debunked yet?
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
The problem with the analogy is that it is the only thing that is close to a creationist argument in this thread, likening biological evolution to an intelligently directed process as it does.
And where have my arguments been "debunked"?
You still have not addressed how a process that can incorporate information from successes (i.e., individuals whose information is copied in the next iteration) and failures (i.e., individuals whose information is not copied in the next iteration) is the same from an information standpoint as a process that can incorporate information from successes (i.e., individuals whose information is copied in the next iteration) but not failures (i.e., individuals whose information is not copied in the next iteration).
Last edited:
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 10,379
I know we've been on the same side, but could you try to keep us straight?
Or the Invisible Hand of free market Capitalism. LOL.
President Bush
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,506
The information content of the concepts of both Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution has been reduced in order to retain only information which is relevant for justifying the analogy.
Last edited:
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
You're defending a weak analogy which is based equiviocation. Your argument is polymorphously fallacious.
And do try to keep me and quixotecoyote separate, please?
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
Pay attention!
You have yet to answer the question I asked of you over 48 hours ago in Post 2142
I have since read jimbobs reply re the subject and I am none the wiser
Sure, go ahead, insult my lack of wisdom. I don't give a **** what you think about me. I just wanna know if you can illustrate that you have ANY idea what you are talking about
If so, I will try to decipher your nonsense on the off chance I might learn something
If not, please stop feigning surprise and contempt for the lack of feedback - cos most of what you post is gibberish
Either way, please try to remember that, although I do not profess to be all that knowledgeable re evolution, nothing precludes me from calling you on your gibberish
Last edited:
Am I too old or something? WILEY COYOTE, as in "Roadrunner" . . .
What I had in mind was a 2 dimensional cousin of a dog that could never stop from chasing the same bird and being clobbered and burried ad nauseaum by the same rocks, blown to bits by the same bundle of TNT, falling through space only to go splat in a cartoon version of Moab, all brought upon himself by a magnificent hubris.
Is that really where you got your sig? Now there are two points I never connected.
Good god, I never paid attention to your avataar before. No offense intended, truly.
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
The post you cited (#2142) doesn't actually address my arguments. It just asks a lot of questions. In fact, your substitution of the rest of my last post with "onan onan onan", instead of acknowledging that I had defined some of the terms you requested in define, implies that you are still stubbornly unwilling to address the substance of my argument:
The below contains some statements from Dembski, Behe, etc, and responses debunking their arguments.
Intelligent Design?
a special report reprinted from Natural History magazine
I would like to point out that Dembski's "specified complexity" is not a signature of design, but complex structures with very obvious errors (e.g. the mamallian eye) are signatures of either unintelligent design, malign design, or darwinian evolution.
Intelligent Design?
a special report reprinted from Natural History magazine
I would like to point out that Dembski's "specified complexity" is not a signature of design, but complex structures with very obvious errors (e.g. the mamallian eye) are signatures of either unintelligent design, malign design, or darwinian evolution.
Fishkr,
What is your objection to using the word "development" to describe technological change?
It can also describe a process of iterative change and will not get confused with biological evolution.
William Dembski:
That is "evolution" according to your broard use of the term, but it is not evolution as it occurs in biology.
Why pretend the two are the same, when they are different? If I am talking about gravity, and someone comes up with a theory that objects have different levels of seriousness and this is what gravity is, I would object to them trying to claim that this is the same as Newton's theory.
"Many textbooks cover topics cover grave topics with the utmost gravity, and this is why they are heavier than books with lightweight subject matter."
This is using an accepted definition for the word "gravity", but only the obvious stupidity of this statement prevents it from being as misleading as equating lamarckian and darwinian evolution.
I agree that Darwin didn't know about DNA, or even mendelian genetics, but that is not needed:
Lamarck:
With Darwinian evolution, any trait is as likely to be diminished as enhanced in any particular offspring; with Lamarckian evolution any trait that the parent used will be enhanced, whilst any that the parent didn't use wil be reduced in all the offspring.
"The first attempt at a bridge was too short to span the gap, so we randomly changed it and found that the shorter bridges didn't reach so we selected a bridge with a longer span"
"The first attempt at a bridge was too short to span the gap, so we lengthend it to reach across the river"
"The proto-giaraffe's neck was too short to reach the top branches, so its offspring had longer necks to reach higher."
What is your objection to using the word "development" to describe technological change?
It can also describe a process of iterative change and will not get confused with biological evolution.
William Dembski:
That is "evolution" according to your broard use of the term, but it is not evolution as it occurs in biology.
Why pretend the two are the same, when they are different? If I am talking about gravity, and someone comes up with a theory that objects have different levels of seriousness and this is what gravity is, I would object to them trying to claim that this is the same as Newton's theory.
"Many textbooks cover topics cover grave topics with the utmost gravity, and this is why they are heavier than books with lightweight subject matter."
This is using an accepted definition for the word "gravity", but only the obvious stupidity of this statement prevents it from being as misleading as equating lamarckian and darwinian evolution.
I agree that Darwin didn't know about DNA, or even mendelian genetics, but that is not needed:
Organisms tend to resemble their parents with some slight differences. (Heredity with changes i.e. imperfect self-replication).
Those organisms that breed will tend to be those which are better adapted to breeding in their environment, and their offspring will tend to resemble their parents more than their grandparents. (Natural selection).
Those organisms that breed will tend to be those which are better adapted to breeding in their environment, and their offspring will tend to resemble their parents more than their grandparents. (Natural selection).
Lamarck:
Organisms tend to resemble their parents.
And they will tend to have traits that their parents have acquired prior to breeding. So if a proto-giraffe has had to stretch its neck to feed, then the offspring of the proto-giraffe will have longer necks than the parent.
The Just-so story theory of evolution.
And they will tend to have traits that their parents have acquired prior to breeding. So if a proto-giraffe has had to stretch its neck to feed, then the offspring of the proto-giraffe will have longer necks than the parent.
The Just-so story theory of evolution.
With Darwinian evolution, any trait is as likely to be diminished as enhanced in any particular offspring; with Lamarckian evolution any trait that the parent used will be enhanced, whilst any that the parent didn't use wil be reduced in all the offspring.
"The first attempt at a bridge was too short to span the gap, so we randomly changed it and found that the shorter bridges didn't reach so we selected a bridge with a longer span"
"The first attempt at a bridge was too short to span the gap, so we lengthend it to reach across the river"
"The proto-giaraffe's neck was too short to reach the top branches, so its offspring had longer necks to reach higher."