• 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?

cyborg said:
You do not understand the argument. You are fighting a strawman because of this. The argument is not what you contend. The argument is not that your actions are evolution because you evolved. The argument is that the results of your actions can equally be seen as contributing to an evolutionary process.

Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

Unless you inappropriately extend it's relevance, I've no argument with that and never have.

The results of my actions most likely do have an affect on several evolutionary processes at any given time, most of which I'm probably not even aware of.

This is really funny because nothing in those posts over the last two pages that had you frothing at the mouth was actually in opposition to this.

My argument was actually AGAINST conflating human actions with evolution, which according to this newest post, you have no problem with.

eta:
Of course I'm defining evolution as something more specific than 'change over time,' specifally involving randomization and selection in order to make the phrase meaningful in a discussion regarding biological evoluton. If you're using an overly broad definition we can go back to fighting
 
Last edited:
This is really funny because nothing in those posts over the last two pages that had you frothing at the mouth was actually in opposition to this.
Click to expand...

That is not my assessment at all of the argument you are arguing against.

My argument was actually AGAINST conflating human actions with evolution, which according to this newest post, you have no problem with.
Click to expand...

Conflation is abstraction dependent. I choose them flexibly according to the needs of the situation.
 
I'm arguing against using human actions, specifically the development of technology, as an analogy to biological evolution.

I am arguing this because the specified human actions are (eta: usually) dependent on intent and forethought, regardless of the human coming to possess intent and forethought through evolutionary processes. As you say, "The argument is not that your actions are evolution because you evolved."

Biological evolution is a process independent of anything possessing intent and forethought and thus the comparison can only lead to confusion.

THAT is my argument. It is also the argument that the majority of the posters have been having for the majority of the thread. If you thought I was referring to a side-argument you were participating in, I'm sorry but you are mistaken.
 
Last edited:
quixotecoyote said:
I am arguing this because the specified human actions are (eta: usually) dependent on intent and forethought, regardless of the human coming to possess intent and forethought through evolutionary processes.
Click to expand...

Yes - the point you seem to have missed is that the whole point of solidifying the analogy is to show the idempotence of "intent" and "forethought" - that is to say that you are not being considered as a "human": your output is "random" by virtue of our ignorance as to the variables upon which "intent" and "forethought" are dependant.

"Intent" and "forethought" are being torn down from the pedestal that you and the IDers put them on. That is why none of us on the other side can comprehend why you think we are supporting the ID argument. We are showing that "intent" and "forethought" are totally unnecessary as existential entities to explain our universe.

They don't really exist in your mind: "intent" and "forethought" are a series of physical triggers that represent these abstract concepts. There is no more "intent" in "you" than there is an intention for an atom to wander about its business. There is no more "forethought" to your actions than there is to where that atom winds up on its merry journey.

If you think there is more "substance" then you become an dualist and open to "God" as the "originator" of the "forethought" and "intent".
 
I understand your point, but I think we are caught on a distinction of semantics.

I completely agree that everything is ultimately random. In fact, mijo and I argue that very point in the Intelligent design's predictions thread. Yet as I conceded in that thread, it isn't useful to refer to everything as equally random; it devalues the utility of the word.

Before I go any further, are you willing to stipulate that some things can be more random than others.

eta:Professor skipped class so I'm back early.
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
We are showing that "intent" and "forethought" are totally unnecessary as existential entities to explain our universe.

They don't really exist in your mind: "intent" and "forethought" are a series of physical triggers that represent these abstract concepts. There is no more "intent" in "you" than there is an intention for an atom to wander about its business. There is no more "forethought" to your actions than there is to where that atom winds up on its merry journey.
Click to expand...


How did the preceding four sentences come to be written?
 
What you call intent and foresight are just things that humans evolved because humans who had such qualities preferentially survived. When humans do as they are "programmed" via their environment and genes, they can't help but become replicators and recombiners of information (see Southwind's baby block-- is the genius designing a tower... is an infant "programming" his hands on purpose when he stares at them and realizes he controls these things? -- Humans are also environmental agents acting on all other evolving systems (other living things, technology, cities, the internet, languages) (information evolves-- not things-- genomes evolve... the animals change appearance over time based on these genomes.)

Intent and foresight are on par with what makes a spider "decide" to build a web and to design it as it does....it's akin to primal urges and the sex drive and instincts that program a creature in relation to it's environment... information that contains a "trick" that helps it's own replication (the information--not the organism) drives evolution. A design for a plane that flies is preferentially copied over one that does not... and the same goes for birds that fly. Their genomes are preferentially passed on over their flight impaired counterparts. Human "intent" and "foresight" and all other aspects programmed into their genes and molded by their environment make humans especially good at information processing-- including interpreting, recombining, tweaking, and replicating that information. It's the same sort of thing that makes a spider choose a location and design a web-- and those spiders that do so best pass on their web building genes preferentially-- that's what is going on with humans.

You make a new program just like a spider makes a new web-- if the program does well, others replicate it for you-- or you do-- good ideas get copied... so do bad ideas with a trick ("believe in me or you'll burn in hell--get others to believe"). The spider with the best web building genes passes those genes on preferentially in THE SAME WAY.

Until you guys can separate the information from what it codes for and quit seeing "intent" or "intelligence" as something outside of "nature" (what is it, supernatural?) then it's like having a conversation with infants. I have the whole lot of you on ignore, because I don't believe progress can be made with those who imagine themselves experts while insulting those who could actually teach you something. Cyborg is right. He's doing his damndest to give you a clue; Southwind too. If they can't get you to see your enormous blind spot-- no one can. But it is your blind spot since the majority of the people here understand the analogy fine and don't think it plays into creationists hands. This includes people who actually have experience on both evolution and in debating and following the "intelligent design" crowd. Moreover, many experts in the field use similar analogies... almost all ID proponents obfuscate natural selection and sound as muddled as the self appointed experts... to them, evolution is based in randomness. None have ever gone through an iterative process...(like the OP-- bottom up "design")-- the tornado in a junkyard is a strawman BECAUSE 747s don't just spring from nothing-- they don't "poof" into existence--only god does that kind of "magic"-- rather they are the result of an iterative process of information honing over many years--tested and selected in the environment based on the product built.

In any case, it's good for the intelligent people to understand whom to put on ignore. Clearly, the self appointed experts are having an entirely different conversation where they are winning imaginary points in a game only they seem to understand. What IS their point? What is it based on? As far as I can tell it's "the analogy doesn't work" based on their OWN lack of understanding of the analogy coupled with their lack of reading any links provided or any recent info. on the topic and their bloated sense that they "know" how the ID crowd argues. (They don't...otherwise they wouldn't sound so much like them--muddled, pedantic, vapid, wandering, and clueless regarding the simplest of points.)

They have not followed up on Cyborg's math-- many great links-- current research in the field (see the Dover trial and learn what ID actually tries to argue, for example), links actually explaining airplanes as EVOLVING and experts using the same exact terminology and science sources linking the evolution of information in both biological and technological systems. They don't understand the concept of a meme or how an idea evolves to become a fad, music, a body of knowledge, a design, a computer, a program, a language, a religion, etc. They don't understand natural selection and could not explain it to anyone. Nobody considers them an expert but themselves. And they insult all those who would help them-- they ignore Southwind's queries and all attempts made to help them get a clue. And they think someone here should take their opinions seriously?? Or waste time trying to cram a clue down their throat.

Amazing.

The incompetent ones never clue in to the fact that they are the incompetent ones.
 
Last edited:
Not that articulett will see this but ...

You are just stating what everyone in this thread knows. We are all aware intelligence is a product of physical processes, and not a gift of some god. Mijo, jimbob, quixotecoyote have never argued otherwise. We also realise it is different, (does not mean better) then other processes.

We differentiate photosynthesis from other chemical processes too. That doesn't mean that we think it is better, only that certain processes can be classed in certain by how they act. Clusters of ganglions have properties differing from most other arrangements of matter, even if those properties arise from the same laws of physics that govern a lump of clay.

The reason the analogy falls is because the particular properties of "intelligence" that make it differ from biological evolution are important to the point made in the analogy.

The statement that we need to 'quit seeing "intent" or "intelligence" as something outside of "nature"' is a strawman. We don't see it outside of nature. It has not been put on a pedastal as Cyborg says.

Stop constructing the same strawman over and over.

Walt
 
Last edited:
And here is anouther attempt to muddle evolutionary algorithms with evolution itself.

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070910b

Evolution is being used. A press release from University of Wisconsin-Madison was titled, “Using evolution, UW team creates a template for many new therapeutic agents.” How does one use evolution? It continued, “By guiding an enzyme down a new evolutionary pathway, a team of University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers has created a new form of an enzyme capable of producing a range of potential new therapeutic agents with anticancer and antibiotic properties.”
We must keep up the heat on evolutionists till they become too embarrassed to say such things. You cannot “use” evolution. The moment you use it, you are doing intelligent design. Evolution has no purpose, no aim, no guidance, no goal, and no reward – not even survival. In Darwin’s universe, extinction happens and is just as dispassionate an outcome as survival. If you think survival is somehow good, that’s your soul speaking.
The moment a human does the selecting, guiding or rewarding, evolution stops and intelligent design begins. Evolution, as used by Darwin, is not just change. It is a particular kind of change: undirected, dispassionate, purposeless, blind. Darwin and his disciples believe that an evolutionary process could have produced all the beauty and variety of today’s highly-adapted lifeforms. Whether it could or not, Darwin certainly would deny that anyone “used” evolution. Darwin fought against any suggestion by compromising theologians of his day (even his close friend Asa Gray) that God used the evolutionary process to create life.
Such stories do nothing but obfuscate. Evolution has nothing to do with it. These scientists had a goal, and purposely selected enzymes with the properties they desired. Darwin team, the referee just blew the whistle. The penalty for your foul is to yield those two points to the ID team. The title now reads, “Using selection criteria by intelligent design, UW team discovers a template for many new therapeutic agents.” Much better; play ball. Whoops; we just remembered the Darwin team has no goal. Game over by forfeit.
Click to expand...

IDers would like the Sam and Ollie story.
 
cyborg said:
Physical interactions.
Click to expand...

So you deny that physical systems can be more than the sum total of their individual part?

Could you then describe the properties of molecular water from the properties of atomic or molecular hydrogen and atomic or molecular oxygen? Or the properties of bulk phase water (solid, liquid, or gas) from the properties of an isolated water molecule?
 
More with the creationist smears? :rolleyes:

I was kind of hoping you'd leave that particular line of poison well fallacy to articulett.
 
mijopaalmc said:
So you deny that physical systems can be more than the sum total of their individual part?
Click to expand...

I don't deny it - to claim physical systems are more than the sum of their parts is to head towards idealist territory.

Could you then describe the properties of molecular water from the properties of atomic or molecular hydrogen and atomic or molecular oxygen? Or the properties of bulk phase water (solid, liquid, or gas) from the properties of an isolated water molecule?
Click to expand...

You don't get it. The ability to describe these things as separate does not give rise to something "beyond" the physical. It is the representation of one physical system in another - namely the brain.

"You" are as much a "blind watchmaker" as any other physical process. Of course you don't think you are and neither do the IDers which is why they can't comprehend how natural processes could give rise to something full of "intent" and "forethought".
 
cyborg-

Can you explain any bulk phase properties of a substance by appealing to the properties of a single isolated molecule or atom?
 
Last edited:
Can you explain any bulk phase property of a substance by appealing to the properties of a single isolated molecule or atom?
Click to expand...

No.

Now tell me: does the creation of an explanation for said add to the sum total of existence or is it merely a reconfiguration of physicality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom