Intelligent Evolution?

[six7s]

I use the word impossible, because ... fluorescence would have such a low probability as to be practically non-existant

OK... so because you think that you can go on, ad nauseum ad ifinitum, re your WRONG use of the word 'random', you think you can now do the same with 'impossible'

Oh well, 10/10 for consistency

I am not saying the analogy doesn't work for me

Well, you had me fooled

An anolgy that equates evolutioon and human-led inteligent design doesn't work beyond the simple fact of iterative improvements

Yeah... right... maybe you ought to get out more

which Behe accepts

Woop

De

Do

How is pointing out examples of the fundamental difference in the evolution and technological development, an attempt to "derail the thread in favour of woo"?

Te processes are different

<resistingTheUrgeToIncludeTheLaughingDogEmoticon/>

Seriously now, you MUST be aware that you and your cronies have, if nothing else, stretched this thread to ridiculous lengths simply by countering indisputable facts (that conflict with your woo) with irrelevant tangential nonsense

the analogy proposed in the OP equates evolution with something that requires intelligence

NO

It is a rather sad indictment of your stance that you infer such

Technological development, to my mind, is closely analogous to natural selection.

analogous != equal ​

If the OP talked about development,

It does

and mentioned how evolutionary algorithms can produce useful and complicated structures

OK... they're not mentioned until Post #33, but do notice how there is no rejection of the idea of algorithms

then it wouldn't be wrong

It's not

and would have some merit.

It has... much more than your continued futile attempts to promote ignorance

 

[articulett]

No... and I wasn't suggesting inter-species gene-transfer, simply the possibility of inter-generational (or whatever its called) inheritance

But anyhow...

No

Why did you ask?

Do you need me to provide evidence before you can imagine the possibility?

It seems that you simply want to derail the thread yet again with one of your onanistic rants... either that or you really are terminally afflicted with dumb-ass syndrome

Our genomes are filled with ervs and insertions from other species... and our ancestral eukaryotes engulfed an entire organism and turned it into an organelle (or battery) to run cells. And humans don't make copies of themselves... nor do sperm or eggs... they make cells that make sperm and cells that make eggs which must combine to make a whole new human--sexual reproduction is not copying-- it's assembling bits and piece of info to make a whole new organism. It's not relevant to the analogy--because it works without all these features lining up-- it's just relevant in regards to what a boob mijo is-- the way he pretends to be knowledgeable on a subject he truly has no curiosity about--except when it comes to defending his view (which oddly enough is exactly the same as creationists.)

Moreover--systems evolve independently and together-- hearts, eyes, skeletons, etc... biomes, communities of animals, forests, symbiotes--each acting as environmental inputs for other evolving systems.

 

[articulett]

Here's from Dawkins review of Behe's book in which, like Mijo and Jimbob, there is an over focus on randomness-- and no understanding or communication of the real miracle worker-- selection:

The crucial passage in “The Edge of Evolution” is this: “By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept.” (the bold is Behe's words)

(Dawkins reacts)
What a bizarre thing to say! Leave aside the history: unacquainted with genetics, Darwin set no store by randomness. New variants might arise at random, or they might be acquired characteristics induced by food, for all Darwin knew. Far more important for Darwin was the nonrandom process whereby some survived but others perished. Natural selection is arguably the most momentous idea ever to occur to a human mind, because it — alone as far as we know — explains the elegant illusion of design that pervades the living kingdoms and explains, in passing, us. Whatever else it is, natural selection is not a “modest” idea, nor is descent with modification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html?pagewanted=print

Unlike Southwinds analogy--creationists go out of their way to obfuscate understanding and to avoid any real discussion of what selection is--how it drives the process. And neither Mijo or Jimbob actually understand selection. Both, like Behe, contend that it is "random"-- while scientists see it as the "derandomizer"--the thing that selects the winners from the pile of random. Jimbob has seen this analogy before--but it just never registers. Jimbob thinks he knows creationist argument and that he explains things well though I don't see anyone anywhere agreeing with him--

To me, he's muddled and tangential... like Behe.

Dawkins is eloquent-- he describes evolution as "descent with modification"-- this works as well for airplanes as it does for life forms. (BTW, Mijo and Dawkins think Dawkins is muddled and that they are more clear--tee-hee-- I doubt they could explain evolution to anyone, because they don't sound like they quite get it themselves.)

 

[Taffer]

Selective breeding is also performed with a purpose.

Please explain this to me.

Natural selection is the phenomenon where alleles change in frequency over time depending on fitnesses of said alleles.
Selective breeding is the process where phenotypic traits are changed in frequency over time depending on fitnesses of said traits.

Natural selection acts upon existing variation within a population.
Selective breeding acts upon existing variation within a population.

Selective breeding creates a selective pressure "against" certain traits and "for" others, but does not create any trait that was not already present in the population.

So please explain to me how they are different.

 

[President Bush]

... we are pumping out all of these gadgets using a poor source of power which pollutes and destroys our environment...the production of oil, plastics, and fibre glass for example all pollute terribly. I live in chemical valley and thus I see the worst of it...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3109699&postcount=867

It is as consistent to claim that every single change in the heritage of the universe was by a force that wanted it that way as it is to claim it is by a force that did not care. You need to accept this is the case.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3072025&postcount=549

 

[Taffer]

The airplane analogy (as kindly presented to me by another member of the forum who has followed this thread since the beginning) seems like a good one.

In selective breeding, we choose traits we want in a population of organisms, then selectively increase that trait in the population. Furthermore, certain traits can be combined to produce new traits, based on new combinations of already existing variation. Finally, novel traits can sometimes arise through natural, or forced, mutation.

In aircraft design, we choose designs we want from a 'population' of possible designs. If the design is good, the design parameters will spread throughout the 'population' (in that most new designs will also exhibit those parameters). New designs can be created by combining already existing parameters to produce a new design. Novel parameters can be included into the design 'population'.

Give the above, it could be said that aircraft design is analogous to selective breeding in that we have a goal in mind, such as a new coat pattern or a faster wing design, thus producing a 'selective pressure' on the population which causes some breeds, or designs, to be lost, and others to become fixed.

The selective pressure created by us is analogous to natural selective pressures. Natural selection has a goal just as artificial selection has a goal; only in the details do they differ.

 

[Paulhoff]

Please explain this to me.

Natural selection is the phenomenon where alleles change in frequency over time depending on fitnesses of said alleles.
Selective breeding is the process where phenotypic traits are changed in frequency over time depending on fitnesses of said traits.

Natural selection acts upon existing variation within a population.
Selective breeding acts upon existing variation within a population.

Selective breeding creates a selective pressure "against" certain traits and "for" others, but does not create any trait that was not already present in the population.

So please explain to me how they are different.

Selective breeding does not necessarily make the population more fit for survival, it just brings out the traits wanted by the breeder.

Paul

 

[Taffer]

Selective breeding does not necessarily make the population more fit for survival, it just brings out the traits wanted by the breeder.

Paul

Survival fitness is just the particular trait "chosen" by nature (if you will excuse the anthropomorphization). There is nothing fundamentally different between one form of selection and another.

 

[articulett]

Selective breeding does not necessarily make the population more fit for survival, it just brings out the traits wanted by the breeder.

Paul

I'd say it hones the information that's already there by giving it a survival advantage over it's less welcome counterparts.

Information that is good at getting itself copied (because humans care for and feed and farm such life forms) preferentially survives to become part of future evolving systems.

The information that made the airplane that first flew-- was copied and refined preferentially-- and the failures such of the glider plane were allowed to "die out".

Humans played a large role in how canine genetics evolved by aiding in the survival of those with traits that aided in their survival. No human designed a dog. People might have inadvertently set about that path by sharing food with a wolf pup that offered protection in exchange or help hunting or hearding--etc. When life forms do what life forms do-- (eat other life forms, reproduce, follow their instincts, etc.-- they can't help but be selectors in the environment of evolving systems...)

 

[articulett]

Survival in regards to genes or ideas just means "more likely to get copied" (so that it exists in the future to be added to, recombined, tweaked, etc. over time.)

The fittest just means "copied the most" when it comes to the information.

(Taffer... I tried the selective breeding analogy... to them that is part of design-- anything with any human input is "design" to Mijo and Jimbob... even though humans are part of the natural environment... just like beavers and dams and bees and hives and coral reefs and predator and prey and sexual competition and earthquakes and tornados and meteors, etc. But to them it's not-- it's hugely different-- I tried evolutionary algorithms blindly selecting and "biomimicry". It must be an ego thing... but human information and human input invalidates the analogy for them... and they think (wrongly) that the analogy plays into Intelligent Design hands--though their obfuscation plays into such hands much better.)

Dawkins review of Behe's book captures the ID crowds blather pretty clearly. Dance and sling pedantry and blow smoke and scream "random" and "arrogant" -- anything to avoid discussing or clarifying what selection really is. Because they KNOW selection is the key to understanding bottom up design-- and dismantling top down design-- like god. All complexity arises from information that evolved over time. The matter (atoms) for todays airplane has been on earth for eons--but not the information for making it. The same for humans.

 

[mijopaalmc]

if you will excuse the anthropomorphization

This is exactly the problem though: intelligent design proponents have already anthropomorphosed nature into God. Nature doesn't "choose" to let better adapted organisms reproduce any more than a coffee filter "chooses" to prevent the coffee grounds for passing into the coffee pot. Analogizing biological evolution to technological development without including caveats about how the involvement of intelligent agents in the latter causes the processes to differ in fundamental ways just invite the anthropomorphosis and apotheosis of the forces of natural selection.

 

[articulett]

Yes jimbob... the mouse evolving jellyfish bioluminescence is as unlikely as a tornado going through a junkyard assembling a 747. And equally as much of a strawman--for the same reasons... and the same analogy undoes your silliness.

 

[Paulhoff]

Survival fitness is just the particular trait "chosen" by nature (if you will excuse the anthropomorphization). There is nothing fundamentally different between one form of selection and another.

Hello, there is a human doing this, this can bring out a trait that would not normally show up in the real world and can be a trait that in the real world would not lead to survival but to death.

Paul

 

[Taffer]

This is exactly the problem though: intelligent design proponents have already anthropomorphosed nature into God. Nature doesn't "choose" to let better adapted organisms reproduce any more than a coffee filter "chooses" to prevent the coffee grounds for passing into the coffee pot.

Of course this is the case. However, selective breeding just selects for a different type of coffee ground. There is no difference between selection by humans and selection by nature. Both describe the situation where some organisms reproduce more often then others depending on some criterion. In nature, that criterion is usually survival fitness. In selective breeding, that criterion (or criteria, I hasten to add) may be pigmentation, speed, or some other trait. The fact that humans "chose" is not important because if one were to bring that up, I would simply state that you can consider nature "choosing" those which are more reproductively fit. I realise that nature doesn't "choose" anything, per se, but then natural selection doesn't actively select for anything either. Natural selection is a phenomenon, something that just happens, not some kind of force.

Analogizing biological evolution to technological development without including caveats about how the involvement of intelligent agents in the latter causes the processes to differ in fundamental ways just invite the anthropomorphosis and apotheosis of the forces of natural selection.

I fail so see how my explanation would cause problems with a creationist. I do not mind carefully explaining my point if need be.

 

[Paulhoff]

I'd say it hones the information that's already there by giving it a survival advantage over it's less welcome counterparts.

Information that is good at getting itself copied (because humans care for and feed and farm such life forms) preferentially survives to become part of future evolving systems.

The information that made the airplane that first flew-- was copied and refined preferentially-- and the failures such of the glider plane were allowed to "die out".

Humans played a large role in how canine genetics evolved by aiding in the survival of those with traits that aided in their survival. No human designed a dog. People might have inadvertently set about that path by sharing food with a wolf pup that offered protection in exchange or help hunting or hearding--etc. When life forms do what life forms do-- (eat other life forms) reproduce etc.-- they can't help but be selectors in the environment of evolving systems.

Many traits that are brought out in dogs for one, are not in anyway a survival advantage.

Paul

 

[Taffer]

(Taffer... I tried the selective breeding analogy... to them that is part of design-- anything with any human input is "design" to Mijo and Jimbob... even though humans are part of the natural environment... just like beavers and dams and bees and hives and coral reefs and predator and prey and sexual competition and earthquakes and tornados and meteors, etc. But to them it's not-- it's hugely different-- I tried evolutionary algorithms blindly selecting and "biomimicry". It must be an ego thing... but human information and human input invalidates the analogy for them... and they think (wrongly) that the analogy plays into Intelligent Design hands--though their obfuscation plays into such hands much better.)

I will never understand this. Humans are not the center of the universe, by any stretch of the imagination. Similarly, we are not 'above' or 'superior' to nature in any way. We are, by definition, natural.

 

[Taffer]

Hello, there is a human doing this, this can bring out a trait that would not normally show up in the real world and can be a trait that in the real world would not lead to survival but to death.

Paul

So? How is the selection criteria that humans impose during selective breeding regimes any different from the selection criteria imposed in nature? What is so special about natural selection that makes it different from any other form of selection?

Many traits that are brought out in dogs for one, are not in anyway a survival advantage.

Paul

Again, so? This is not an argument against the analogy, but merely an argument that selective breeding is not the same form of selection to the natural selectino obvserved in nature.

To further the point: certain breeds of dog exhibit traits which would lower their reproductive fitness in nature given the current ecological systems. There is nothing to say that they couldn't evolve via natural selection if those traits were beneficial to survival in a different environment.

 

[articulett]

Hello, there is a human doing this, this can bring out a trait that would not normally show up in the real world and can be a trait that in the real world would not lead to survival but to death.

Paul

Humans are part of the real world Paul. All creatures drive the evolution of other life forms--they eat them, they form symbiotic relationships with them--each cell is a sybiote of sorts, because it contains mitochondria which were once their own life form... and the cells form communities of tissue called organs which form animals and plants and trees and wheat and bacteria and fungi-- all of which depend on other life forms for survival and processing after death...so that the atoms that made them can be recycled. Animals evolve to be part of other evolving systems too--ant colonies, coral reefs, swamps, etc... and sexual selection drives evolution. Evolution is about information being refined and honed over time. It doesn't matter if the environmental inputs are aware, partially aware, or completely unaware of how their actions affect the future of the evolving system. We are all designing the internet--and yet, it is evolving blindly-- we don't know where it's going-- we couldn't have predicted this... we just do what we humans like to do, and the internet evolves. Information (rather coded in DNA or "ideas") that gets itself copied (via whatever means) is information that drives evolution.

When an animal gives birth to a new animal with a slight mutation that will one day give rise to some new species-- neither that mother animal nor that baby animal evolve in their life time-- only the information that makes them... and it's the environment which selects that which sticks around to be honed further. In the same way, when a human designs an airplane... he/she is only tweaking what has come along so far and seeing if it works--if so, the environment will continue honing the information...if not, you go back to the drawing board. Nothing complex comes from scratch-- it's all based on information that has been selected and honed by the environment over time. Humans copy ideas that are useful to them or can make them rich or that ride along their primitive impulses or that trick them or get stuck in their head or that taste good or to fulfill their desires to share info. etc. Our technology and knowledge would seem magic to primitive peoples who didn't have the foresight to understand how it evolved-- just like life can seem amazing to those who don't understand that all evolution is driven by information selected by the environment over time.

It isn't as different as your words and your head imagine. That's why creationists use the tornado in the junkyard analogy as opposed to the bottom up actual path of airplane evolution and assemblage. The 747 could not exist, before the information accumulated to build such a thing... just as humans could not exist until genomes evolved to such a point.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I fail so see how my explanation would cause problems with a creationist. I do not mind carefully explaining my point if need be.

But original analogy (i.e., the one in the OP) no longer holds if you remove the intelligent agent from technological development.

 

[Paulhoff]

So? How is the selection criteria that humans impose during selective breeding regimes any different from the selection criteria imposed in nature? What is so special about natural selection that makes it different from any other form of selection?

Once again, natural selection on the whole will select those traits that will help the organism survive in the real world. Many of these traits selected by humans will not last long in the nature.

Paul