Intelligent Evolution?

[mijopaalmc]

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.

Equivocate much?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Equivocate much?

I don't see anything in that quote to object to. Our technological skills are an evolutionary enhancement of our ape-like ancestor's skills. It's where she moves off that and into saying that the application of our abilities to creating technologies is similar to the process that produced the abilities that the analogy fails.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I don't see anything in that quote to object to. Our technological skills are an evolutionary enhancement of our ape-like ancestor's skills. It's where she moves off that and into saying that the application of our abilities to creating technologies is similar to the process that produced the abilities that the analogy fails.

Notice how she uses the word "evolution" to describe both even though she is clearly using two different definition of the word.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Notice how she uses the word "evolution" to describe both even though she is clearly using two different definition of the word.

That was more or less my point, in that I didn't see her doing it in that post although I object to her doing it generally.

I suppose the last line could be interpreted as either the evolution of technologies or the evolution of our ability to use technology in which case it is too ambiguous.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The construction "(be) the evolution of" seems to refer to a specific definition (#2 at dictionary.com, which follows directly #1).

 

[articulett]

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

Most skeptics don't pursue "belief systems"-- they pursue understanding and truth. The loathing he referred to that you seem to have misinterpreted has to do with someone's imagined expertise obfuscating useful information...kind of like what you are doing. Those who don't understand the analogy are not those whose opinions would be valid on the topic. Until they show an understanding on the topic, they tend to do what you have done-- introduce ad homs and get offended when they come back. Your ignorance on the thread didn't keep you from spouting an overly confident opinion about the topic and judging others in the process while adding no useful information to the discussion or a hint of a reason why we should consider you an expert on either evolution or intelligent design obfuscation techniques. You are an admitted Christian. They often have trouble with understand natural selection. The analogy illustrates natural selection-- how information evolves over time based on what works in the environment it finds itself in.

 

[Southwind17]

Gee, a lot can happen during a night's sleep eh!

I'm going to pretend that you didn't say this, Mr. OP writer.

You mean like you'd now like everyone else to pretend you hadn't said this!

No. The major inventions and innovations of our time stemmed from an individual thinking "I know of a better way to do this", and then he did it.

Thing is chippy, when a thread becomes as long as this, well, if you come to the party as late as you have you've gotta drink a hell of lot of beer very quickly to get with the program. You can't expect to take a wee sniff of the barmaid's apron and assume that that will earn you respect from the serious drinkers!

I work in a company where this happens on a daily basis. I know because it's my job to do this.

Oh yeah - the old 'it's my job, so I'm an expert' fallacy. Do you really think a window cleaner can profess to be a 'vision technician' and claim to understand the properties and optics of glass?!

Every day, I look at what we do, and I think "I know how to do that better", and I make it happen. That's what being an engineer is all about.

Good on ya buddy. Where would we all be without you, eh?!

Hardly any of what I, or any other engineer in the entire world, has accomplished happened because of some chance event.

That might well be true, especially for engineering disciplines. Does this statement, however, serve to disprove anything?

In short, saying that most major inventions come about by chance is both totally wrong and gives no defense towards a naturalist argument.

Yes, it would be wrong to say that, wouldn't it. Almost as wrong, in fact, as woefully misinterpreting and misquoting. Your demonstrating that you can't even seem to pay attention to the OP doesn't really bode well for your future here now does it, as we have already witnessed:

In re-reading the OP, I find that I strongly disagree with the whole opinion. Though I picked out the bit about major advancements coming by chance, I have to say, the whole assertion that technological development "evolving" on its own is just ridiculous. 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. How is it that the intelligent design that drove the evolution of technology refutes the intelligent design of life theory?

As I, and other people have pointed out chippy, you can't read the preface to a book and then claim to have read and understood the book (gee, these analogies sure work well, don't they!)

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.

So technology is 'invented' and ''designed'' now is it? And there was I thinking that technology was a collective noun used to describe the environment in which things develop and evolve. Gee, if you can't even get your nouns and verbs in a coherent order no wonder you're struggling with your rationale!

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.

Yeah, similar to what you amusingly stated above, it's his job to know about medicine, and he's your brother, so it follows that his knowledge also becomes yours. Your brother, presumably, is a competent engineer too, I assume?! He doesn't happen to wear particularly shiny shoes, does he?!

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.

This is just one example that shows you've not read the thread. What do you think would happen, given enough time, if the 'tweaking', as you call it, was done randomly? I'll say no more chippy; the answer's hidden somewhere within the thread, and I couldn't be bothered to spell out the logic again for the benefit of somebody who happens to arrive at the meeting late then proceeds to try to control the agenda!

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 ...

Now that's a revealing and unnecessary admission, surely!

... 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.

Yeah, you only need take one sneaky peek at those pills and you simply can't help denying that their 'heavily worked' complexity just smacks of intelligent design, whereas the cheetah, for example, well, way too simple an organism, could only be evolution. Now that's a compelling comparison eh!

Besides, drugs are just ONE example of progress made by humanity, which is such a broad topic anyway.

That's just as well, isn't it!

I think we can all agree that cars, airplanes, bridges, cell phones, and other highly sophisticated inventions were NOT created by chance.

Yes, we can, just like we can agree that natural evolution doesn't occur purely by chance either.

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

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

Hear, hear.

You're dot-dot-dotting to my statement where I said "all". ok, let's suppose I said "many".

Like I did, you mean?

If MANY inventions are made by chance, then why is engineering a profession?

Did somebody say that 'inventions' are made by chance? Could it just be that engineering and design, as they happen today, might be seen by some as beneficial mechanisms to speeding up the development process, like for selective breeding of pedigree horses? We could, of course, just watch and wait and see what emerges by chance (like British Leyland effectively did in the 1970s before it was too late to realize that their competitors had taken it upon themselves to think ahead a little more!). Gee chippy, you really must pay attention if you want to save further embarrassment, and please don't be afraid to read over the thread, if you're interested in the real debate here!

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?

Oh, that's a useful comparison, and reveals you for what you are - an unrealistic, cynical, exaggerator, to name but three traits that are immediately apparent from just a couple of your statements.

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

You're right here chippy. Bit like a bird making a nest, or as articulett keeps pointing out, a spider casting a web, don't you think. Is there a possibility of a valid point coming along soon?

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?

'Technological advancement' evolves does it? Gee chippy, you're as bad as quixote getting your proverbials in a twist. You really do need to read the thread to understand what exactly is being argued here. If you can't be bothered then move on to something less mentally challenging.

Perhaps my thoughts are best expressed with an example.

Yes, examples can serve as a convenient alternative for people who struggle to express their thoughts using rationale and logic!

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 ...

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

Keep digging chippy. I can't wait to see the size of the hole that you finish up in, but better still, how you proceed to try to clamber your way back up the sides!!!

 

[Southwind17]

I don't see anything in that quote to object to. Our technological skills are an evolutionary enhancement of our ape-like ancestor's skills. It's where she moves off that and into saying that the application of our abilities to creating technologies is similar to the process that produced the abilities that the analogy fails.

Yes, but quixote, I'm guessing that you've stayed close enough to this thread throughout to realize that I've moved on from the literal application of the analogy, but not so as the validity of the original analogy is in any way diminished.

Do you not follow my reasoning when I point out that we do not need to apply 'intelligence' for machines to evolve with increasing complexity? Can you not see what will emerge if we simply facilitate replication of our machines with random variations then allow their respective environments to select for what 'works best'?

It's ironic that the more you guys force me to re-consider my argument the more robust it becomes in my mind. I guess I'm just better at visualization and imagination, not to mention logic and rationale.

 

[Southwind17]

Notice how she uses the word "evolution" to describe both even though she is clearly using two different definition of the word.

That was more or less my point, in that I didn't see her doing it in that post although I object to her doing it generally.

I suppose the last line could be interpreted as either the evolution of technologies or the evolution of our ability to use technology in which case it is too ambiguous.

The construction "(be) the evolution of" seems to refer to a specific definition (#2 at dictionary.com, which follows directly #1).

There is no single authoritative definition/meaning of the word 'evolution' to the exclusion of all other definitions/meanings! In any event, I can see what she means. Given that humans have undoubtedly evolved 'naturally' then it can be argued that everything that humans do is an extension of evolution. It's no different from the notion that there is no such thing as 'artificial' in the context of it's alleged polar juxtaposition with 'natural'. Nature 'created' humans, therefore everything that humans do is 'natural'.

But this is a digression. Regardless of the foregoing, my argument does not rely on the premise that 'intelligence' is a product of natural evolution and that as such it need not be explained away to dispel Intelligent Design. As jimbob, of all people, rightly pointed out, in my story about Sam & Ollie, Sam could be replaced by an automaton with no intelligence. It need do only three things for complex machines to evolve:

• replicate electronics devices
• make random changes
• send the completed devices out to the marketplace and wait for the proceeds, thereby signalling the success of the device and triggering the replication/variation process all over again

Do this enough times and what happens?

As articulett eloquently put it: wash, rinse and repeat.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, but quixote, I'm guessing that you've stayed close enough to this thread throughout to realize that I've moved on from the literal application of the analogy, but not so as the validity of the original analogy is in any way diminished.

Do you not follow my reasoning when I point out that we do not need to apply 'intelligence' for machines to evolve with increasing complexity? Can you not see what will emerge if we simply facilitate replication of our machines with random variations then allow their respective environments to select for what 'works best'?

I've been following the thread, although I haven't been able to follow your game of hot potato on exactly when you're arguing the analogy and when you're arguing something else to avoid facing the problems with it.

In certain, specific, unusual circumstances, machines can be made to mimic biological evolution. Of course the fact that process is modeled on evolution makes it near useless as an explanatory tool to explain evolution. You already have to understand evolution to understand the model!

The more commonplace design, wherein you intentionally plan/design the traits of a machine (which is what the majority of invention, development, and refinement is) is what you will evoke with your analogy to technology. You are making the same argument as the ID'ers and hoping that when people hear it they'll understand that you mean the design processes that work like evolution, not the design processes that work like, well... design.

It's ironic that the more you guys force me to re-consider my argument the more robust it becomes in my mind. I guess I'm just better at visualization and imagination, not to mention logic and rationale.

I've no doubt that you and articulett will never believe your arguments were anything other than completely robust.

 

[Southwind17]

I've been following the thread, although I haven't been able to follow your game of hot potato on exactly when you're arguing the analogy and when you're arguing something else to avoid facing the problems with it.

In certain, specific, unusual circumstances, machines can be made to mimic biological evolution. Of course the fact that process is modeled on evolution makes it near useless as an explanatory tool to explain evolution. You already have to understand evolution to understand the model!

The more commonplace design, wherein you intentionally plan/design the traits of a machine (which is what the majority of invention, development, and refinement is) is what you will evoke with your analogy to technology. You are making the same argument as the ID'ers and hoping that when people hear it they'll understand that you mean the design processes that work like evolution, not the design processes that work like, well... design.

I assume you're alluding to the Sam & Ollie story. If not, what 'something else' are you alluding to?

All the Sam & Ollie story does is show that changes to a design can be made randomly instead of with intent and forethought, and still lead to the same technologically complex outputs. This demonstrates that the only thing 'truly intelligent' about human design and different from natural evolution is that we've recognized and embraced the benefit of applying intent and forethought. We could just as easily blindly replicate what we already have and make random changes and see what happens. But we all know what would happen don't we - time waits for no man. That fact that we have learned to apply these qualities of intent and forethought could, arguably, be what differentiates 'design' from, say, fortune, but if so it should be the 'Design' component and not the 'Intelligent' component of ID that one should focus on in any quest to disprove the IDers as the 'D', in that context, clearly sits very uncomfortably with nature. And that's exactly what I've done. Having done that, one is left wondering what possible purpose the 'I' could serve without the 'D'! Intelligent Fortue only (IF ONLY!) sounds like a contradiction to me!

I've no doubt that you and articulett will never believe your arguments were anything other than completely robust.

I think you mean 'are' - 'are anything other than completely robust'!

Now, I don't suppose you'd care to respond directly to my Post# 1449?!

 

[quixotecoyote]

I assume you're alluding to the Sam & Ollie story. If not, what 'something else' are you alluding to?

I was referring to machines making use of evolutionary algorithms, but for the sake of argument I will include your son in the description which is rehashed at the end of this post.

All the Sam & Ollie story does is show that changes to a design can be made randomly instead of with intent and forethought, and still lead to the same technologically complex outputs. This demonstrates that the only thing 'truly intelligent' about human design and different from natural evolution is that we've recognized and embraced the benefit of applying intent and forethought.

That sounds like a workable definition of design to me.

We could just as easily blindly replicate what we already have and make random changes and see what happens. But we all know what would happen don't we - time waits for no man.

Actually we don't. That's the point of random. If you're looking for a specific result, as in you want your engines, motors, and various mechanical doodads to combine into a plane instead of a bulldozer, it will behoove you to actually attempt to build a plane instead of clunking parts together randomly and discarding each one that isn't closer to a plane than a bulldozer.

That fact that we have learned to apply these qualities of intent and forethought could, arguably, be what differentiates 'design' from, say, fortune, but if so it should be the 'Design' component and not the 'Intelligent' component of ID that one should focus on in any quest to disprove the IDers as the 'D', in that context, clearly sits very uncomfortably with nature. And that's exactly what I've done. Having done that, one is left wondering what possible purpose the 'I' could serve without the 'D'! Intelligent Fortue only (IF ONLY!) sounds like a contradiction to me!

Could you please explain how one can conceptualize a design without intelligence?

eta:I may have misunderstood you here. If you are actually saying that you should focus on pointing out that there is no design (intent and forethought) in natural/biological evolution then I agree completely! I simply disagree that using analogies to technology and invention, wherein intent and forethought are much more common than evolutionary algorithms, is any way to accomplish that.

Now, I don't suppose you'd care to respond directly to my Post# 1449?!

As you wish.

There is no single authoritative definition/meaning of the word 'evolution' to the exclusion of all other definitions/meanings! In any event, I can see what she means. Given that humans have undoubtedly evolved 'naturally' then it can be argued that everything that humans do is an extension of evolution. It's no different from the notion that there is no such thing as 'artificial' in the context of it's alleged polar juxtaposition with 'natural'. Nature 'created' humans, therefore everything that humans do is 'natural'.

Everything we do is an extension of evolution in the broadest of senses, but in no way can everything we do be said to be evolution.

But this is a digression. Regardless of the foregoing, my argument does not rely on the premise that 'intelligence' is a product of natural evolution and that as such it need not be explained away to dispel Intelligent Design. As jimbob, of all people, rightly pointed out, in my story about Sam & Ollie, Sam could be replaced by an automaton with no intelligence. It need do only three things for complex machines to evolve:

• replicate electronics devices
• make random changes
• send the completed devices out to the marketplace and wait for the proceeds, thereby signalling the success of the device and triggering the replication/variation process all over again

Do this enough times and what happens?

As articulett eloquently put it: wash, rinse and repeat.

Frankly I think you underestimate Sam. You really think he learned nothing from his successful designs.

Anyway, even if I grant you that your son is equivalent to an automaton in this scenario, my previous statement applies:

In certain, specific, unusual circumstances, machines [and processes] can be made to mimic biological evolution. Of course the fact that process is modeled on evolution makes it near useless as an explanatory tool to explain evolution. You already have to understand evolution to understand the model!

The more commonplace design, wherein you intentionally plan/design the traits of a machine (which is what the majority of invention, development, and refinement is) is what you will evoke with your analogy to technology. You are making the same argument as the ID'ers and hoping that when people hear it they'll understand that you mean the design processes that work like evolution, not the design processes that work like, well... design.

 

[Southwind17]

I was referring to machines making use of evolutionary algorithms, but for the sake of argument I will include your son in the description which is rehashed at the end of this post.

I have made no deliberate reference, explicit or implied, to evolutionary algorithms. In fact, my understanding of evolutionary algorithms is extremely limited (I had no knowledge of them prior to this thread), which might well account for what enables me to see and appreciate the validity of the analogy and what prevents others more familiar with such concepts from doing so. Your suggestion, therefore, that I have at times been using evolutionary algorithms to 'argue something else' in order to 'avoid facing the problems with [the analogy]' is completely without basis.

That sounds like a workable definition of design to me.

Meaning?

Actually we don't. That's the point of random. If you're looking for a specific result, as in you want your engines, motors, and various mechanical doodads to combine into a plane instead of a bulldozer, it will behoove you to actually attempt to build a plane instead of clunking parts together randomly and discarding each one that isn't closer to a plane than a bulldozer.

I think you misunderstand. When I wrote: "But we all know what would happen don't we ...", I was alluding to the notion that simply waiting for complex machinery to emerge would quickly be usurped by humans short-circuiting the process by deploying intent and forethought, and developing R&D departments as a result. I wasn't alluding to the idea that we can predict what the outputs of random variation will bring. Of course, we cannot predict results derived from randomness. In simplistic terms, Sam would be as likely to evolve an intruder alarm system as he would a heating control system as he would a radar installation as he would a sat. nav. system as he would an EPOS system. Who knows what would emerge? I acknowledge that there would be an incredible amount of 'waste' and dead-ends along the way, but that's also an inherent part of the analogy that maps closely to natural evolution.

Could you please explain how one can conceptualize a design without intelligence?

Perhaps the word 'design' is, whilst crucial to the debate, ironically confusing! Can you conceptualize a complex machine 'coming into being' without intelligence, following the model that I described in the Sam & Ollie story? I certainly can. What's the difference between such a machine and the complex machines we see around us? Simple: Sam's complex machine would take a long time to emerge with many 'failures' and dead-ends along the way. Those around us have emerged over a hugely shorter timeframe, but only because of the conscious substitution of randomness with intent and forethought, but that's not to say that randomness wouldn't have worked - it most certainly would have. Can you not see that intent and forethought are only one part removed from randomness because it's 'convenient' to apply them, and that randomness would derive the same result, just over a much longer period of time? If I were to ask you to sort a shuffled deck of cards into suit sequence and order how would you go about it? You would probably work through the deck sorting by suit into four piles. Then you'd probably take each suit and sort into sequence by laying the cards out on a table. Then you'd probably stack the sorted suits one atop the other. Alternatively, you could deal the entire deck out face up in a single row and see what cards fall in their 'correct' place, assuming a suit order left to right. You could then leave those cards in place (because you can see the benefit of leaving them), collect the others up and either re-shuffle them and re-deal or simply re-deal them into different places. You could repeat this process until the cards appear in suit and sequence order. Which method would you choose? It doesn't matter does it - they both achieve the same result - apparent order in the cards. But wait a second, yes, it does matter, because the second method will take far longer than the first method, and you don't have the time and patience, so you go with the method that offers the most efficient use of time. If you were to show a sorted deck of cards to somebody and tell them you did it 'randomly' they probably wouldn't believe you, for obvious reasons, but a complete absence of intelligence has got you to exactly the same place!

Everything we do is an extension of evolution in the broadest of senses, but in no way can everything we do be said to be evolution.

I'm inclined to agree.

Frankly I think you underestimate Sam. You really think he learned nothing from his successful designs.

Anyway, even if I grant you that your son is equivalent to an automaton in this scenario, my previous statement applies:

In certain, specific, unusual circumstances, machines [and processes] can be made to mimic biological evolution. Of course the fact that process is modeled on evolution makes it near useless as an explanatory tool to explain evolution. You already have to understand evolution to understand the model!

The more commonplace design, wherein you intentionally plan/design the traits of a machine (which is what the majority of invention, development, and refinement is) is what you will evoke with your analogy to technology. You are making the same argument as the ID'ers and hoping that when people hear it they'll understand that you mean the design processes that work like evolution, not the design processes that work like, well... design.

That's an 'intelligent' tactic - to regurgitate verbatim something you wrote previously in response to a different question. Oh yes - that's rather telling! You're in danger of being relegated to the same doldrum category of constructive debating and logical argument that the likes of ID, jimbob and mijo have so masterfully stumbled and tripped their way down to!

 

[Southwind17]

I've just finished watching a National Geographic 'Machines of War' episode chronicling the history of the machine gun. Whilst I don't recall hearing the word 'evolution' or its derivatives and associations used, I lost count of the number of times the narrator used the terms 'owes its origins to' and 'direct descendant of'. It was particularly noticeable during the analysis of the GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon mounted on the USAF A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog).

The GAU-8 is categorized by Wikipedia as a 'Gatling-type rotary cannon' owing to the 'fact' that its basic design can be traced right back to the Gatling Machine Gun patented in 1862. The original Gatling Machine Gun can be summarily described as a black-powder, hand-cranked, loose (no links or belt) metal cartridge ammunition field weapon. The GAU-8 is hydraulically-driven and uses Armour-Piercing and High-Explosive Incendiary rounds. The former incorporates a depleted uranium penetrator. Included within Wikipedia's description of the GAU-8 and its ammunition characteristics is:

A very important innovation in the design of the GAU-8/A shells is the use of aluminium alloy cases in place of the traditional steel or brass. This alone adds 30% to ammunition capacity for a given weight. The shells also have plastic driving bands to improve barrel life.

There are many more similar examples of how the GAU-8 and its ammunition have incrementally evolved from its predecessors within the description. Of course, there's absolutely no possibility whatsoever that a simple change of materials for the cartridge cases and driving bands could have come about by random variation, had such a mechanism been deployed in lieu of intent and forethought, is there. Oh no, such simple changes absolutely rely on 'intelligence'!

'Owes its origins to'; 'direct descendent of'. What could possibly have possessed the narrator to use such terms in respect of a modern-day machine gun that is so distinctly different from the Gatling Machine Gun of the 19th Century? Beats me!

 

[quixotecoyote]

I have made no deliberate reference, explicit or implied, to evolutionary algorithms. In fact, my understanding of evolutionary algorithms is extremely limited (I had no knowledge of them prior to this thread), which might well account for what enables me to see and appreciate the validity of the analogy and what prevents others more familiar with such concepts from doing so. Your suggestion, therefore, that I have at times been using evolutionary algorithms to 'argue something else' in order to 'avoid facing the problems with [the analogy]' is completely without basis.

You lack of understanding is your source of knowledge? Weird statement

Further, I never said the bold portion. I said that you jump from arguing for the analogy to arguing for something nebulous and ill defined.

Meaning?

Meaning that I can agree with design in terms of technology development as being defined by intent and forethought.

I think you misunderstand. When I wrote: "But we all know what would happen don't we ...", I was alluding to the notion that simply waiting for complex machinery to emerge would quickly be usurped by humans short-circuiting the process by deploying intent and forethought, and developing R&D departments as a result. I wasn't alluding to the idea that we can predict what the outputs of random variation will bring. Of course, we cannot predict results derived from randomness. In simplistic terms, Sam would be as likely to evolve an intruder alarm system as he would a heating control system as he would a radar installation as he would a sat. nav. system as he would an EPOS system. Who knows what would emerge? I acknowledge that there would be an incredible amount of 'waste' and dead-ends along the way, but that's also an inherent part of the analogy that maps closely to natural evolution.

Yes, but as I said (and you continue to ignore) that is not how heating systems and alarm systems and whatever else are actually built. You are basically saying, "Pretend that design works in the same way as evolution. See how similarly that works to evolution?!"

I believe I emphasized that in the edit to this section.

Perhaps the word 'design' is, whilst crucial to the debate, ironically confusing! Can you conceptualize a complex machine 'coming into being' without intelligence, following the model that I described in the Sam & Ollie story? I certainly can. What's the difference between such a machine and the complex machines we see around us? Simple: Sam's complex machine would take a long time to emerge with many 'failures' and dead-ends along the way. Those around us have emerged over a hugely shorter timeframe, but only because of the conscious substitution of randomness with intent and forethought, but that's not to say that randomness wouldn't have worked - it most certainly would have. Can you not see that intent and forethought are only one part removed from randomness because it's 'convenient' to apply them, and that randomness would derive the same result, just over a much longer period of time? If I were to ask you to sort a shuffled deck of cards into suit sequence and order how would you go about it? You would probably work through the deck sorting by suit into four piles. Then you'd probably take each suit and sort into sequence by laying the cards out on a table. Then you'd probably stack the sorted suits one atop the other. Alternatively, you could deal the entire deck out face up in a single row and see what cards fall in their 'correct' place, assuming a suit order left to right. You could then leave those cards in place (because you can see the benefit of leaving them), collect the others up and either re-shuffle them and re-deal or simply re-deal them into different places. You could repeat this process until the cards appear in suit and sequence order. Which method would you choose? It doesn't matter does it - they both achieve the same result - apparent order in the cards. But wait a second, yes, it does matter, because the second method will take far longer than the first method, and you don't have the time and patience, so you go with the method that offers the most efficient use of time. If you were to show a sorted deck of cards to somebody and tell them you did it 'randomly' they probably wouldn't believe you, for obvious reasons, but a complete absence of intelligence has got you to exactly the same place!

I don't see what this adds to your point, it seems to simply be a restatement of your position.

That's an 'intelligent' tactic - to regurgitate verbatim something you wrote previously in response to a different question. Oh yes - that's rather telling! You're in danger of being relegated to the same doldrum category of constructive debating and logical argument that the likes of ID, jimbob and mijo have so masterfully stumbled and tripped their way down to!

The first time I posted it, you did not engage the argument and repeated your Sam and Ollie story. The second time I posted it, you did not engage the argument and responded with insults. I am going to post it a third time, will you engage it this time?


In certain, specific, unusual circumstances, machines [and processes] can be made to mimic biological evolution. Of course the fact that process is modeled on evolution makes it near useless as an explanatory tool to explain evolution. You already have to understand evolution to understand the model!

The more commonplace design, wherein you intentionally plan/design the traits of a machine (which is what the majority of invention, development, and refinement is) is what you will evoke with your analogy to technology. You are making the same argument as the ID'ers and hoping that when people hear it they'll understand that you mean the design processes that work like evolution, not the design processes that work like, well... design.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I've just finished watching a National Geographic 'Machines of War' episode chronicling the history of the machine gun. ....

Do you believe that the machine gun has changed in form from the gatling gun by people applying random changes to it and throwing away the ones closer to a gatling gun than a machine gun? Originally the gatling gun was mounted on an artillery carriage but was later refined to fit on a tripod. Do you really think they made continuous random (and as you admit, wasteful) changes, or do you think they specifically made the parts smaller?

 

[jimbob]

Further to quixotecoyote's post #1456,

Later on someone realised that a Gatling-gun could work with an electric crank, and this is what is used in the most devastating machine guns (e.g. the 30mm gun in the A10). This was not a random change to any chronologically immediate predecessor, but a return to the Gatling-gun concept, as opposed to the Maxim-gun concept.

Technological development doesn't work like evolution.

ETA:

Usually ;-)

 

[quixotecoyote]

Technological development doesn't work like evolution.

Usually.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You know I think that it is interesting that the very same people who get all in a tizzy when I explain that evolution is random because phenotypic interaction with the environment doesn't fully determine survival and reproduction are now trying to argue that a goal-driven process such as technological evolution is the same as a goalless process such as biological evolution.

 

[Belz...]

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?

You DO know the definition of the word "many", don't you ?

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.

No, an ad hominem would be saying that BECAUSE you are dishonest, your arguments are not worth adressing.