Intelligent Evolution?

[articulett]

Say... more smart people describing the evolution of technology--

http://brainstuff.howstuffworks.com/2008/01/08/ces-2008-tour-8-evolution-of-the-digital-camera/

Of course, who cares if all the experts in both evolutionary biology and evolution of technology describe them as similarly... the self appointed experts have already decided that they are smarter than them... though no one else seems to think they have any expertise at all. You'd think, if you really wanted to understand something.. you'd listen to the experts... but the woo never do... that's how they give themselves away even as they lie and pretend that they are all about "science" and logic. If that is true--why do they think they are smarter than the multiply linked experts. Perhaps, because like creationists, they are not interested in new developments or the facts-- they think they already know what is important to know on the subject and NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE can change their mind.

Truly... if you asked them if anything would convince them that the analogy is good and that teachers all over use it with much success to produce pupils that sound so much smarter than the self appointed experts-- they still would be convinced that THEY are "right" and Dawkins, et. al. are wrong, wrong, wrong. They will never thank you guys for a clue or help-- because they don't want a clue... they want to be right. I know some people think that they are just slow or "about to get it" or honest etc. But they are doing EXACTLY what known creationist, Behe (ID proponent) does. Exactly. They are trying to prove the rightness of their non opinion by purposefully avoiding all the words of experts in the field... and the words of their peers who have patiently and persistently tried to give them a clue. I see no difference. I've seen this a hundred times... it's always the same... if there is no difference between the way they argue and the way creationists argue-- you've got yourself a creationist... or someone stupid enough to be one.

 

[articulett]

Thank you

So... in your view jimbob, what is the relative significance of 'concern for how IDiots might spin things' in your quest to dismiss the OP analogy (or whatever it is you hope to achieve by posting to this thread)?

He is still proffering that? It says nothing about natural selection over time and it's not an argument that any creationist uses... they all go for the obfuscation... just like him... so that people never get the simple power of natural selection over time. Like him... they focus on the "random"... but they never get the "nonrandom"-- multiplication of successes over time via selection! And Jimbob, like Mijo imagines himself an "expert" on this topic...

Mijo came here less than a year ago whining about the unexplained "discontinuity in the fossil record" which many fine people worked very hards and sincerely to educate him about... and I bet he couldn't give you a decent answer now. He just decided that science has no explanation and excused away his common creationist strawman argument saying he was "confiued about something on the Simpsons".

I have him on ignore, because I loathe lying creationist scum pretending to be interested in "science" and "facts" and skepticism. They are really just interested in proving their inane apologist nothingness to themselves while trying to make others as stupid as they are. In all my time on this forum, I have never seen one of them get a clue. Really. Mijo is as stupid and dishonest and vague and arrogant as he was when he started posting. And he craps on everyone who goes to bat for him and aims to help him understand.

 

[six7s]

Would you seriously say that a raven is essentially the same as a writing desk simply because they both have quills?

Say... more smart people describing the evolution of technology--

http://brainstuff.howstuffworks.com/2008/01/08/ces-2008-tour-8-evolution-of-the-digital-camera/

Would you seriously say that The StupidFilter Project (byline: Because the internet needs prophylactics for memetically transmitted diseases) is essentially the same as Wikiasari (a plan to "combine open source technology and human intervention to deliver more relevant results than the algorithm-based systems used today") simply because they are both linked to from InternetEvolution.com, which is linked from howstuffworks.com/2008/01/08/ces-2008-tour-8-evolution-of-the-digital-camera/?

--------
ETA: quills quote for those who have mijo on ignore

 

[articulett]

Would you seriously say that The Wizard of Oz is essentially the same as your contribution to this thread simply because they both involve strawmen?

I rarely laugh out loud... but this made me nearly wet myself.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I rarely laugh out loud... but this made me nearly wet myself.

Because apparently you and six7s think it's OK to equivocate when it "supports" your argument. The point of the raven/writing desk "analogy" is that if one takes one, single property of an object, one can very frequently come up with a tenuous "analogy" relating the two supposed analogs, especially if one equivocates.

 

[six7s]

if one takes one, single property of an object, one can very frequently come up with a tenuous "analogy" relating the two supposed analogs, especially if one equivocates.

No? Really? Wow!

Of all the things I didn't know, I didn't know that the most

The point of the raven/writing desk "analogy" is...

... is that there is NO point, other than providing more straw to pad out your lame excuse for an argument against the analogy

Face it mijo... it's time for you to build a bridge, and get over it

 

[articulett]

No? Really? Wow!

Of all the things I didn't know, I didn't know that the most



... is that there is NO point, other than providing more straw to pad out your lame excuse for an argument against the analogy

Face it mijo... it's time for you to build a bridge, and get over it

Why? He's still got jimbob to wrestle in the mud with... and jimbob is his faithful sidekick just as he was right there with him asserting that evolution really is random (if you look at it through stupid mijo eyes-- and, of course, creationist eyes.). That's what is so ironic. Here, they are supposedly worried about creationists misunderstanding things... and there, they were wording things so vaguely that it did nothing but encourage the main creationist straw man! Yet they insisted that they were being "technically correct" in their obtuseness (identically "correct" to Behe, I'll note.) And, here, they pretend something similar though, as there, the actual experts disagree... not that they'd read any expert-- they imagine they ARE the experts.

Semantic games of creationist nutters... round and round and round they go... never a clue between them.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why? He's still got jimbob to wrestle in the mud with... and jimbob is his faithful sidekick just as he was right there with him asserting that evolution really is random (if you look at it through stupid mijo eyes-- and, of course, creationist eyes.). That's what is so ironic. Here, they are supposedly worried about creationists misunderstanding things... and there, they were wording things so vaguely that it did nothing but encourage the main creationist straw man! Yet they insisted that they were being "technically correct" in their obtuseness (identically "correct" to Behe, I'll note.) And, here, they pretend something similar though, as there, the actual experts disagree... not that they'd read any expert-- they imagine they ARE the experts.

Semantic games of creationist nutters... round and round and round they go... never a clue between them.

Actually, it is you and your cohorts who have insisted on playing semantics games by pretending that "random components doesn't a random process make"and that "biological evolution and technological development are essentially the same because information changes in both processes".

 

[Southwind17]

Got it.

Making yogurt and making wine are essentially the same process because they are both fermentation processes. Now you should be able to make yogurt and wine.

Thank you mijo. You do realize, don't you, that so far as your description of making yoghurt and wine goes the processes are very closely analogous? I think you've just unwittingly, but quite rightly, acknowledged the validity of the OP analogy. This is one occasion where your impulsive responsiveness has derived justice.

 

[Southwind17]

I'm not much interested in what would happen to be the ability. I'd like to know what is.

The ability necessarily leads to what is. Are you suggesting that a hungry long-necked giraffe with the resultant ability to reach the highest leaves will not seek to take advantage of that ability?

 

[Southwind17]

I guessed I should have known that you would completely miss the point, Belz. The point was that, by the scheme with which the analogy in the OP is created, one can take any common property that two objects have and declare them analogs no matter how many differences there actually are between the two processes. In other words, analogy based on one common property gives that false impression that the two supposed analog more similar than they really are.

So, mijo, why don't you test your own understanding and appreciation of the OP analogy by listing separately the similarities and differences. Oh, and while you're listing the differences, please ensure you take full cogniscance of both the Sam & Ollie story and the ladder analogy (my version). You might care to post the outcome!

 

[President Bush]

Note that YOU are the one abstracting, obfuscating, flailing and failing to grasp the analogy, English, and even your own warped words

Compare this with cyborg, who - although abstracting is not abstracting away anything... simply because there is no need and to do so would be counter-productive

I am unsure whether you are abstracting the abstracting away or have actually abstracted away the abstracting away.

There are only so many ways I can say the same thing: I have abstracted away intelligence.

 

[Southwind17]

If you had spent your time actually reading the thread, you would have seen that jimbob has twice presented examples of intelligent design proponents making their own analogy to technological development and emphasizing the presence of intelligence in that process (#532, #730).

You see mijo, this highlights exactly the point that I keep making to you and jimbob but that you both seem to remain oblivious to. Until you show that 'intelligence' can be removed from technological development with no effect on the outcome, as I have, you will never win the ID war. To continue to highlight other differences between biological evolution and technological development essentially plays right into the ID proponents' hands, because you're not even shooting at the target.

The lift cables example above is another good case in point. The size can either be calculated, guessed at (from experience, or intuition, say) or chosen completely randomly. Calculation should get it right first time. Guessing might take a few attempts to get it right (validated by testing, i.e. can the giraffe reach the high leaves), and random selection might take a few more attempts (again, validated by testing). In the case of lift cables it shouldn't take too long, given the limited range, and it might even be right first time!. Now, mijo, please explain to us why our evolved ability to adopt the calculation method necessarily precludes somebody adopting the random selection method, thereby invalidating the OP analogy.

 

[Southwind17]

Regardless how intelligent design will try spin the analogy in the OP, it simply doesn't work because it takes one, single property and overemphasizes its importance to the detriment of getting even the most general sketch of the supposedly analogous processes.

Would you seriously say that making wine or beer is essentially the same as making yogurt simply because they both involve fermentation? Or that soccer is essentially the same as snooker because they are both played with balls?

I'm sure you'll find mijo, if you do care to list the similarities and differences between technological development and biological evolution, as I've invited you to do above, and again, taking due cogniscance of the Sam & Ollie story, the ladder analogy and now the lift cables analogy (as I've re-described them), that you'll see many more similarities than differences in contrast to comparing wine making with yoghurt making, or soccer with snooker. Please, go ahead.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Thank you mijo. You do realize, don't you, that so far as your description of making yoghurt and wine goes the processes are very closely analogous? I think you've just unwittingly, but quite rightly, acknowledged the validity of the OP analogy. This is one occasion where your impulsive responsiveness has derived justice.

You just don't get it do you?

Picking a single point of correspondence does not make a good analogy. You need several. Wine is made by the alcoholic fermentation of grape juice using eukaryotic yeasts whereas yogurt is made by the lactic acid fermentation of milk by prokaryotic bacteria. In other words, the two processes are the same only in so far as they are fermentation processes. Therefore, saying that they are essentially the same is extremely misleading to anyone who hopes to learn anything more about the processes than that they are fermentation processes.

Similarly, the differences between biological evolution and technological development have been discussed at great length and dismissed because the supposed abstraction on which the "analogy" is based occur at a "higher level" than the differences. However, the "analogy" does not actually convey any more information other than that the processes are essentially the same in so far as information changes and reproduces with the information that reproduces most efficiently persisting. This is a problem because it neither explains, even in the broadest detail, each process actually work in the real world not does it "counter Intelligent Design (ID) theory", because, as jimbob has shown, intelligent design proponents liken intelligent design to technological development at a level lower than the one at which the analogy functions.

 

[Apathia]

I am unsure whether you are abstracting the abstracting away or have actually abstracted away the abstracting away.

Well, now that the differences in and the making of wine and yoghurt have been abstracted away, I'm in a bit of a quandry. I don't drink. Will I have to give up yoghurt? OMG! kefir!

 

[Southwind17]

I don't liike it, because as well as being popular amongst IDers, it is also subtly* wrong, and misleading.

Even people who are not IDers often seem to think of evolution as being somehow lamarkian: "The gibbon evolved to live in trees" or, "humanity evolved to be intelligent", when that gives an image of "predestination" that isnt really there in evolution.

Or even some of lightcreatedlife's early posts that seemed to suggest that "the goal of all evolution was the emergence of intelligence"

Ecological niches will get filled, but how is a different matter, and the filling of some niches will close others.

*Subtly wrong, yet superficially attractive - a bad metophor isn't one that is obviously wrong, but one that seems plausible, yet lends itself to the analogy being stretched too far.

So you don't like it because some people don't really understand and appreciate it (mostly those who would rather not). That's a rather defeatist attitude, especially when the alternative arguments have little if any sway. I'd rather develop the OP analogy, as we have done, to address that part (intelligence) that's creating the bottle neck such that it can be removed, as I have done. It's just very unfortunate that even some ET supporters can't grasp it, let alone the IDiots!

 

[Southwind17]

Thus, saying that you have "abstracted away" the differences that are inconvenient to your analogy does not justify it. When you start removing essential differences between the two analogs, you have destroyed the usefulness of the analogy.

Which differences, mijo, are you claiming have been 'abstracted away'? Please pay due cognisance to the Sam & Ollie story, the ladder analogy and the lift cables analogy (my versions) in formulating your response, or will your list of similarities and differences that I'm hoping to see highlight this for us!

 

[President Bush]

Well, now that the differences in and the making of wine and yoghurt have been abstracted away, I'm in a bit of a quandry. I don't drink. Will I have to give up yoghurt? OMG! kefir!

If yoghurt were wine... kefir would be champagne.

 

[Southwind17]

Because apparently you and six7s think it's OK to equivocate when it "supports" your argument. The point of the raven/writing desk "analogy" is that if one takes one, single property of an object, one can very frequently come up with a tenuous "analogy" relating the two supposed analogs, especially if one equivocates.

I guess this proves mijo doesn't read carefully. ARTICULETT HAS YOU ON IGNORE MIJO!!! Or maybe mijo simply cannot grasp the sophisticated concept of the 'ignore' feature!