Intelligent Evolution?

[ImaginalDisc]

OK, now for ID's 'salient points':
autonomous: (of a country, region, etc) (partially) self-governing; independent; (of the will) guided by its own principles (philos); autonomic (bot and zool).

Are you joking?

Here, use a dictionary.

au·ton·o·mous /ɔˈtɒnəməs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[aw-ton-uh-muhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. Government.
a. self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only.
b. pertaining to an autonomy.
2. having autonomy; not subject to control from outside; independent: a subsidiary that functioned as an autonomous unit.
3. Biology.
a. existing and functioning as an independent organism.
b. spontaneous.

Gee, I wonder if you might perhaps be deliberately equivocating because that it all your analogy is based on.

 

[jimbob]

So who is the "Intelligent Designer" of the 747? Why aren't we praising him/her? Isn't that a miracle? How did all that matter that existed for eons come together to make something so grand, and shouldn't we worship such intelligence? And who is the "Intelligent Designer" of a tornado? Certainly something with all that power must have a designer-- look how it is all spiral shaped--doesn't that indicate design? To say these things came to be by "randomness" just doesn't make sense. Why it's all so magical and difficult to understand, I think god must have designed both. Surely some magnificent intelligence must be involved--it must be top down design-- to believe otherwise is like asking me to believe the miraculous tornado created the miraculous 747 while passing through a junkyard!

Wikipedia is your friend:

Joe Sutter was an engineer for the Boeing Airplane Company and lead designer for the Boeing 747. Sutter is often referred to as the "father of the 747."

Articulett is so firmly against intelligent design that she even denies its existance in intelligent design by humans.

What is the point about talking about a tornado?

BTW nominated for humour.

 

[six7s]

Articulett is so firmly against intelligent design that she even denies its existance in intelligent design by humans

Does she?

The way I read it, she is using irony to illustrate how ridiculously farcical IDiots are in their apparent need to believe in fantastic notions that fly in the face of observable reality

BTW nominated for humour.

Funny you can't (or don't want to) see that

 

[articulett]

Are you joking?

Here, use a dictionary.


Gee, I wonder if you might perhaps be deliberately equivocating because that it all your analogy is based on.

All of the definitions fit the analogy, silly.

Information evolves in a system in direct proportion to how well it is replicated in the environment... in human made information systems, usually working well is enought to get information started on that path. Human generated information is replicated in human minds and human made products (autonomy)... Having better information come along and supplant you is a way of becoming obsolete.

Oh my stars-- could the same thing not be said for genomic information?

But those few and silly who don't get the analogy think everyone else is wrong. Amusing. Arrogant. But amusing. Remember kiddies, just because you can't imagine how an analogy could be useful... doesn't mean that it's not. And just because you think it plays into the hands of those who would use it for nefarious intent, doesn't mean it does.

You don't believe me, but the rest of us can see that it's because you don't "get" it. Not because your point is valid. We can also see that nothing we say can change your mind because you have some weird faith that your analogy can't work. Even though it HAS for many. Moreover, you think that the ID crowd will exploit it. Look at Eugenie's tape. Read the Dover transcripst. Nobody in Dover is going to mention "information being selected over time"-- why? because all their strawmen rely on this notion that scientists think this all "came together randomly". Southwinds analogy shows that NOTHING truly comes about randomly. All seeming complexity is a result of information being selected over time.

Read the bold. That's the analogy. All your other defintiions and extrapolations don't matter to the majority. They only matter in your head and they are only confusing you.

 

[jimbob]

I believe I have explained the context of the analogy on numerous occasions. The very fact that you have asked this basic question at this stage leads me to believe that you have have absolutely no comprehension of either the premise of the OP or the ensuing supporting arguments.

So apart form incremental improvement over time, What is the similarity.

To get the analogy to work even on your terms, you have had to invoke a system that is unlike any real development anytime in history (and because of its innefficient use of evolutionary algorithms, unlike any plausible system anytime.

The analogy would only be remotely useful if it kept to something that people understand. If they can't comprehend the beautiful simplicity of evolution and natural selection, then wierd automated factories with mystical "market selection" that is never properly explained is not going to help.

I believe this highlights a large part of your inability to comprehend the analogy; you have an aversion to the words used, and they are forming a negative mental barrier. I should not be surprised to learn that there is, in fact, either a medical or psychological explanation for this - seriously!

So it is not what you say, but the way that you say it? When Dembski says the same as you that is misleading, but when you say the same, it is helpful?

If you count carefully you will realize that you cite two similarities, not one, and I have added a further two, making four. How many similarities, exactly, do you consider an analogy needs to be valid?!

"Incremental improvement over time", or "both show optimisation and both are iteritive processes" could count as either one or two, the second is implied from the first in the second case.

It is not the number of similarities but the power and utility of the analogy that is important. The hydraulic model works as a simple model of electrrical devices, but only when the limits are appreciated.

The trouble is that you don't seem to appreciate where the analogy falls down.

A crocodile's method of hunting is a bit like wolves, because both eat their prey.

Maybe I could extend this a little.

If a pack of wolves congregated round a water hole and ate wilderbeast then there would be essentially the same method of hunting as a crocodile.​

Firstly the analogy has to be altered beyond recognition, secondly it misses essential parts of both processes. Crocodiles are ambush hunters and drown their prey, whilst wolves are pack hunters, and herd their prey.

No it's not; there's no such thing as 'intelligent evolution', at least not in the natural environment. There is, however, in the 'artificial' human environment, and it does, indeed, essentially form a precursor to my analogy (because all human design has intelligence behind it), but is not, as I have repeatedly explained, essential to the analogy. I have explained how the title 'Intelligent Evolution?' came about. It could be considered unfortunate. If I knew what I have learned from this thread about the implications of using that term when I made the OP I would probably have chosen a different title, and yes, I would still have made the OP!!!

But even your tortured example of an automated factory making what the market dictates, still begs the question as to how the market's dictates are interpereted.

 

[articulett]

Does she?

The way I read it, she is using irony to illustrate how ridiculously farcical IDiots are in their apparent need to believe in fantastic notions that fly in the face of observable reality

Exactly. I think it is funny. He missed it completely. We don't worship the 747 guy because we know that he didn't poof it into existence... that it was built upon designs that came before... we all know the Wright brothers because they made the first airplane-- but even that wasn't poofed into existence... it took a lot of trial and error and design tweaking. And tornados don't just manifest either. All complexity can be understood by understanding the path of information and inputs leading to it.

Nothing is a miracle when you understand how it came to be... a tornado making a 747 would be a miracle BECAUSE there is no iteration-- no selection process over time... that is why the 747 designer is not god. And that is why understanding evolution makes god unnecessary.

 

[jimbob]

But it is funny because it is almost exactly the same as your argument that aircraft evolved.

Southwind is arguing that the analogy is so strong that the processes can be made to be essentially the same, and arguing that evolution doesn't need self-replication.

Using examples of (human-led) intelligent design to argue against Inteligent Design is also not very clever.

 

[articulett]

Nobody is saying that the analogy is aircraft evolving. You can't hear what is actually being said. Information evolves over time. The instructions for building aircraft have evolved just as the instructions for building life forces based on what works "best" as modified by the environment over time.

Information evolves-- not aircrafts. When we speak of species evolving, we are actually talking about the information that makes them evolving and the morphing that we can see via snapshots in time. The snapshots are just what the best information was creating at the time--the state of the art "technology" at the time.

But still... no matter how carefully explained-- those who think the analogy doesn't work never actually clue into what the analogy is. You guys are still so clearly confusing the "result" from the information that codes for what is built.

We can all agree that the material for making cows existed before there were cows just as all the material that existed for making airplanes also existed before there were airplanes. The atoms were all there. What changed? What allowed for the complexity... how did an eohippus turn into todays zebras, donkeys, horses, and Ponies? How did the Wright brothers airplane become todays variety of aircraft. Neither actually changed into the other-- but we recognize a connection. That connection from eohippus to horse is the same process as Wright Brothers airplane to 747.

All your digressions don't matter to the analogy. And, give the intelligent design crowd a break... if this worked; they'd use it. At least get yourself a clue as to what they are actually trying to do and what they are trying to keep people from understanding. Hint: they sound like Mijo not southwind. And I think it's obvious who is more readily understood.

When you get people to think that it's all so complicated and different they end up sound as confused as those who don't "understand" the analogy sound. For the rest-- it's easy. Very easy. Your hubris is your own worst impedement to your understanding. And your muddledness is truly a gift that the intelligent design crowd can use. They can say, "look, even the skeptics don't agree." The skeptics with a background in evolutionary biology appear to agree--and they readily use analogies such as this... because they WORK for most. The two most adamant that it won't work don't quite agree with each other... and they are known to think they are experts in areas where they are not.

But I explain not for those who can't get it... but for those who wander by and do get it. Southwinds question has been answered. His analogy can and does work. Those who are skeptical about the analogy working don't even seem to "get it". But analogies don't have to work for everyone to be useful for many. The analogy directly addresses the strawman 747/tornado while simply illustrating why evolution is nothing like the example while giving a clue as to what evolution actually is.

I suspect that those who don't understand the analogy may have some faith based reasons (that they may or may not be aware of) for not getting it and insisting that the problem is the analogy-- and not them. To me... it's so clearly them.

 

[jimbob]

Evolution requires imperfect self-replication

This is what Von Neumann showed ^WP

 

[jimbob]

Articulett, the ID crowd was using this idea of intelligent evolution as of 2007-02-06

Even if IDers were no longer using this analogy (which they are) all that would mean was that it was too poor an anology even for them...

 

[Paulhoff]

Evolution requires imperfect self-replication

This is what Von Neumann showed ^WP

Also genes can be damaged before they are replicated by radiation, this is how most changes happen.

Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

Exactly. I think it is funny. He missed it completely. We don't worship the 747 guy because we know that he didn't poof it into existence... that it was built upon designs that came before... we all know the Wright brothers because they made the first airplane-- but even that wasn't poofed into existence... it took a lot of trial and error and design tweaking. And tornados don't just manifest either. All complexity can be understood by understanding the path of information and inputs leading to it.

Nothing is a miracle when you understand how it came to be... a tornado making a 747 would be a miracle BECAUSE there is no iteration-- no selection process over time... that is why the 747 designer is not god. And that is why understanding evolution makes god unnecessary.

Again you are confusing intelligence with supernatural ability, just as intelligent design proponents do . One does not need to have supernatural abilities, like the "Intelligent Designer" supposedly does, to be intelligent.

God is worshipped because he is supernatural; the "Intelligent" label was tacked on to hide the "supernaturalness" of the God so that intelligent design wouldn't be automatically rejected on Establishment Clause grounds.

To repeat: intelligence is a natural phenomenon; intelligent design is just code for supernatural creation. The two concepts are fundamentally different, and intelligence does not imply supernatural ability.

 

[Paulhoff]

So, so-called god is not to be thought of as intelligent.

Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, so-called god is not to be thought of as intelligent.

Paul

No, I think that intelligent design proponents, think of God as intelligent, but this intelligence is not the same thing as human intelligence, which, again, is a natural phenomenon. In other words, humans can be intelligent (as artuculett has acknowledge there are people who are more intelligent than she) but not in the same way God is (i.e., supernaturally). The point is that we can most definitely talk about the intelligence of a human engineer without invoking the supernatural abilities of God as intelligent design advocates do.

 

[six7s]

Again you are confusing intelligence with supernatural ability, just as intelligent design proponents do .

Again you are confusing reality with your bizarrely twisted view of reality, using your super-stupor ability to infer nonsense in a futile attempt to support your bizarrely twisted view of reality and so on and so forth in ever-decreasing circles to the point where you seem to have been swallowed whole by the fundamental(ist) orifice of IDiocy

As it is abundantly clear that there is NO evidence for ANY woo, suggesting that a scientist could confuse the so-called 'supernatural'with 'intelligence' is absurd

But then absurd is evidently the strongest suit of IDiots in their petty game of bluff

 

[six7s]

God is worshipped because he is supernatural;

Evidence?

As per your extraordinary claim, it seems that gods are worshipped by people who can't accept reality and, instead, create and cling to a fantasy of their own peculiar and wholly unintelligent design, one which precludes the extraordinary scrutiny such claims merit

----------
ETA: if you want evidence of this, try looking in the mirror - with and then without your woo-tinted spectacles

 

[jimbob]

All your digressions don't matter to the analogy. And, give the intelligent design crowd a break... if this worked; they'd use it. At least get yourself a clue as to what they are actually trying to do and what they are trying to keep people from understanding. Hint: they sound like Mijo not southwind. And I think it's obvious who is more readily understood.

I therefore offer the following proposal if ID gets outlawed from our public schools: retitle it Intelligent Evolution (IE). The evolution here would be reconceived not as blind evolution but as technological evolution. Nor would it be committed to Darwin’s idea of descent with modification. But, hey, it would still be evolution, and evolution can be taught in schools. In fact, I think I’ll title my next book Intelligent Evolution: The Mindful Deviation of Evolutionary Pathways. Perhaps this book has already been written.

The evolution here would be reconceived not as blind evolution but as technological evolution.

Technological development, to my mind, is closely analogous to natural selection. Small but significant changes are made here and there over time such that each new variant becomes more and more sophisticated and capable. The ‘obsolete’ variety becomes less efficient or capable and is ‘discontinued’. It’s widely acknowledged that many major advancements in technology and medicine have come about through chance or fluke. That’s analogous to mutations in my mind.

Considering how technology has evolved over just the last 200 years it doesn’t seem at all amazing to me that animals and plants have only come as
far as they have in the last 4 billion (catastrophic wipe-outs excepted)!

Completely different.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Again you are confusing reality with your bizarrely twisted view of reality, using your super-stupor ability to infer nonsense in a futile attempt to support your bizarrely twisted view of reality and so on and so forth in ever-decreasing circles to the point where you seem to have been swallowed whole by the fundamental(ist) orifice of IDiocy

As it is abundantly clear that there is NO evidence for ANY woo, suggesting that a scientist could confuse the so-called 'supernatural'with 'intelligence' is absurd

But then absurd is evidently the strongest suit of IDiots in their petty game of bluff

Evidently you have mistaken me for someone else. I do not support intelligent design in any way shape or form. The "bizarrely twisted view of reality" that you claim I have is merely a figment of your imagination. You are the one who is claiming, without any evidence I might add, that what human engineers do is exactly the same as what mutation and natural selection do. I am merely claiming that you are wrong and the claim the technological development and biological evolution are analogous only support the preconceived notion about the universe that intelligent design proponents have.

Please provide evidence of your extraordinary claim that I am somehow advocating intelligent by objecting to the analogy of unintelligent and purposeless biological evolution to intelligent and purposeful technological development. In your eagerness to refute intelligent design, you seem to be rejecting the notion that any natural process can be guided by intelligence rather trying to distinguish between those that are guided by intelligence (e.g., intelligent design and technological development) and those that are not guided by intelligence (e.g., biological evolution).

Also, please point out were I stated a belief in the supernatural rather than explaining what I thought others' beliefs in the supernatural meant.

 

[Paulhoff]

No, I think that intelligent design proponents, think of God as intelligent, but this intelligence is not the same thing as human intelligence, which, again, is a natural phenomenon. In other words, humans can be intelligent (as artuculett has acknowledge there are people who are more intelligent than she) but not in the same way God is (i.e., supernaturally). The point is that we can most definitely talk about the intelligence of a human engineer without invoking the supernatural abilities of God as intelligent design advocates do.

I don't buy it, you are trying to say that a so-called god in the bible doesn't show an ability to think and understand things clearly and logically.

Paul



But then again.................

 

[jimbob]

mijo, would you care to post something so I can compare and contrast your view with Southwind and the IDers who claim "technological evolution" (I could just use almost any of your posts on this thread, but...)