Intelligent Evolution?

[articulett]

Equivocating "evolving" again, I see.



False. Brains evolved and are good at learning from the environment. They did not evolve "to" do anything. There is no pupose behind evolution.

It's not equivocation-- it's a fact. Evolution is driven by information being selected over time.

Brains that learned from the environment were preferentially selected over brains that did not-- therefore, we say they "evolved to"-- just as we say that porcupine quills and cactus needles "evolved to" keep such entities from being eaten by predators. Information doesn't know to evolve-- But when good information evolves, it sticks around preferentially because it makes it's replicators more likely to survive and reproduce. Of course "good" is a human term. To information, "good" just means to stick around and get copied. Religions might make people feel good getting them to spread the message... but that has nothing to do with the whether the message actually does anything good or useful. Venereal diseases aren't good from a human perspective... but the the information evolved a great trick... it gets copied via human primal urges...

You just don't get it. And, perhaps you can't. There is no purpose behind any evolution even if we think that there is or we are manipulating it to fit our "purposes"-- We evolved as information processors and so that is what we do... we do it for whatever reasons we tell ourselves we do it-- but it's all pretty much on par with ants making ant colonies as far as the process.

I can't make you understand--but everything you, mijo, or jimbob type makes it so clear you don't. And everyone else seems to get it easily-or at least somewhat...or at least realize that they are missing something that others understand... I hear evolution used by lay people all the time to communicate the same concept.

I think it's best if you realize that the problem with the analogy is your understanding. As my links show--lots of people... lots of very smart people who successfully communicate with many use the same analogy. You keep confusing the information for the thing it creates.

You say inane things just like mijo ("a bird is NOT a plane") (duh) while missing the forest for the trees. You are as unable to comprehend this analogy as Mijo is unable to comprehend why it confuses more than it clarifies to call evolution random. Since you know that nothing will work to convey that information to him-- why in the world would you continue in this conversation knowing that nothing anyone says will convince you that it's your perception that is lacking?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh, they are. They just don't get why.

Explain, guru. Explain at what point I have explicitly or implicitly argued for the existence of god, or take back that lie.

 

[cyborg]

Despite the fact that living things do not take inovations from one species and apply to another, as it ruotinely done with machines, for example?

It's called sex ID.

SEX.

It may not be routine for you, sure.

Oh, and despite the fact that machines are not self-replicating?

There is no self-replication.

Silly me, I also forgot to point out that machines plans are parsed and edited by intelligent designers who make deliberate choices, which is also a glaring distinction.

You use the word 'intelligent' as if you even know what it means.

Hmmm, I seem to recall typing up a list of inherent differences you have failed to address.

A cat is an animal. Cats are inherently not dogs. Therefore dogs are inherently not animals.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It's not equivocation-- it's a fact. Evolving is driven by information being selected over time.

False. Evolution acts on the phenotype, not the "information." Genes which are completely unexpressed do not experience selective pressure.

You just don't get it. And, perhaps you can't. There is no purpose behind any evolution even if we think that there is or we are manipulating it to fit our "purposes"-- We evolved as information processors and so that is what we do... we do it for whatever reasons we tell ourselves we do it-- but it's all pretty much on par with ants making ant colonies as far as the process.

I get Evolution, what I don't "get" is your instistence on using words in their common, incorrect, usage when discussing Evolution.

I can't make you understand--but everything you, mijo, or jimbob type makes it so clear you don't. And everyone else seems to get it easily-or at least somewhat...or at least realize that they are missing something that others understand... I hear evolution used by lay people all the time to communicate the same concept.

To communicate incorrectly.

How does it feel to deliberately promote a confused misunderstanding of Evolution?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It's called sex ID.

Clearly, you fail to understand the defintion of "species."

There is no self-replication.

The ameoba would disagree, if it were able. Given only materials, it does the job of reproducing itself.

 

[cyborg]

Explain, guru. Explain at what point I have explicitly or implicitly argued for the existence of god, or take back that lie.

Introduce X without a need and a god is what you seed.

 

[cyborg]

Clearly, you fail to understand the defintion of "species."

Perhaps you could direct me to the rock it is written on? Mayhaps I can find it atop a mountain?

The ameoba would disagree, if it were able.

Well I'm sure the organelles in the ameba would disgaree about that arrogant presumption - if they were able.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Introduce X without a need and a god is what you seed.

What is X, where did I introduce it, and how does that require a god?

 

[articulett]

Part of me is just amused. It reminds me of trying to explain to my 2 year old that he wasn't in the photograph because he had not been born yet. It just didn't compute. In his head, nothing existed before he did.

And then trying to later explain what the term "X" meant in algebra. When I'd say, "it can be any number"-- he'd keep asking "but what number is it??"

There are some mental blocks that you cannot fix. There is a guy who cannot make new memories because his hippocampus is destroyed (google: Clive Wearing if interested), so he feels like he is always just waking up from a coma--he's in a perpetual twilight zone, and you can't fix it for him, because he won't remember what you tell him--he can't.

A colorblind person cannot know what it is like to see full color just like we can't know what it's like to see colors that we have not evolved to see. Anasognosia means that you don't know what you don't know. And because it is not fixable, I think it's better just to be glad for what you can know...

Instead of being frustrated... I'm aiming for amusement-- No use knocking myself out for a two year old who cannot understand that the world existed long before he did and will exist long after too. Some things cannot compute for some people. Those are people that are more fun to talk about--than to.

 

[cyborg]

What is X, where did I introduce it, and how does that require a god?

Intent.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Perhaps you could direct me to the rock it is written on? Mayhaps I can find it atop a mountain?

A deliberately disengenous request, considering nothing at all is defined in that way. However, Evolutionary Biologist Ernst Mayr's defintion is apt:

A species is an actually or potentially interbreeding population that does not interbreed with other such populations when there is opportunity to do so.

Failing to interbreed is the cornerstone of the definition of species.

Well I'm sure the organelles in the ameba would disgaree about that arrogant presumption - if they were able.

Organelles do not constitute organisms. False analogy.

 

[articulett]

If no one arguing against the "analogy" is arguing for "God"... how can the use of the "analogy" be what you say?

Why should anyone believe the "analogy" is information to be selected?

I've already gone through all this. People see designed things and have heard the creationist argument that things that look designed, must be. Creationists use the tornado/747 analogy to argue that this amazing design could not just be "random" as scientist say. But scientists don't say that. Scientists say that all "miraculous" complexity and design are built by information selected and built upon through time. Information that gets itself copied is what drives evolution... in a similar way that natural inputs evolve landscapes over time... trees grow tall because those that had genes that made them taller got sunlight to make food and survived over their shorter counterparts passing on their taller genes. And the airplanes that exist today are built by tweaking the successful information of the past-- and tweaking those and copying that information rather that information that didn't work.

The analogy specifically attacks the creationist strawman--because even 747's didn't just poof into being-- they evolved via information honed over time... There were lots of failures before there was a prototypes before a design emerged that would be worth replicating and building upon.

There's a primitive horse type creature called an eohippus that gave rise to the equine of today. It didn't evolve...it's genome was copied and tweaked by the environment over time so that the features of Zebras and Donkeys and Horses emerged. It's Genome evolved... todays horses, ponies, zebras evolved from that genome! The progenitor of that genome died while information it replicated lived on.

The first airplane was built on lots of trial and error, but when it emerged it became "information for building flying machines" that was copied and refined and honed to become the varieties of airplanes we have today.

Information drives evolution. Nothing is top down like a tornado in a junkyard, except "god"-- and it's unnecessary. We don't need magic to build airplanes or life-- just information which is preferentially replicated, tweaked, and honed via a selection process over time.

Information lives on long after it's replicators... and so there are lots of opportunities to better it and lots of time over which selection can work. Human input just biases the direction and speeds things up-- but there are other selection processes that do the same. Catastrophes, for example.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There's a primitive horse type creature called an eohippus that gave rise to the equine of today. It didn't evolve...it's genome was copied and tweaked buy the environment over time so that the features of Zebras and Donkeys and Horses emerged. The first airplane was built on lots of trial and error, but when it emerged it became "information for building flying machines" that was copied and refined and honed to become the varieties of airplanes we have today.

What you're describing is Evolution. Why would you say something as contradictory as "it didn't evolve?"

 

[cyborg]

A deliberately disengenous request, considering nothing at all is defined in that way.

You do, however, seem to be of the perspective that definitions really do define reality.

Failing to interbreed is the cornerstone of the definition of species.

It sure is.

I bet you don't think that could apply to human technology dontcha?

Organelles do not constitute organisms.

Factories do not constitute machines.

Oh wait... a factory is a machine isn't it?

False analogy.

False analogy? Null.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You do, however, seem to be of the perspective that definitions really do define reality.

A spurious accusation. I am using the word "species" as it is used in Evolutionary Biololgy. You are using it any damned way you please to avoid being shown to be wrong.

It sure is.

I bet you don't think that could apply to human technology dontcha?

That is correct. Innovations in drag research can be applied equally to airplanes and automobiles. Developments in drag efficency in penguins cannot be applied to dolphins.

Factories do not constitute machines.

Oh wait... a factory is a machine isn't it?

I don't see the point of your question. Factories are not autonomous, but organisms are.

False analogy.

 

[articulett]

Despite the fact that living things do not take inovations from one species and apply to another, as it ruotinely done with machines, for example?

Oh, and despite the fact that machines are not self-replicating?

Silly me, I also forgot to point out that machines plans are parsed and edited by intelligent designers who make deliberate choices, which is also a glaring distinction.

Hmmm, I seem to recall typing up a list of inherent differences you have failed to address.

Actually, living things do take innovations and use them--that's how niches are formed... that's how we have ervs. Humans are not "self replicating"-- they have DNA and some of it may get passed on preferentially-- sperm is not self replicating... it is created by cells that make sperm-- sperm don't make sperm... sperm just carries half your DNA. Eggs are not self replicating. The only replication that needs to be done is at the information level Information that is good at getting itself copied-- gets copied preferentially. That is true whether it's a gene that makes the sex drive strong or an idea that makes men think they can get rich or gain power or have more sex... Any information that is good at getting copied, has a chance to exist in the future as part of an evolving system. All the differences are irrelevant. The analogy captures the essence. At it's core, technological evolution and biological evolution are the same--

Information that gets itself copied drives the process... it doesn't matter if the purpose is the "reason" the information is replicated is because wind blew dandelion seeds or dogs followed their sexual urges or humans typed on the internet to fulfill communication desires or because an engineer tweaked a design and it made a product that was better than the prior version-- it's all just information selected for it's ability to get copied by the environment it finds itself in. Information that doesn't get copied, can't evolve.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually, living things do take innovations and use them--that's how niches are formed... that's how we have ervs.

I wish you could write in English. What the heck is "ervs?"

Do you get a kick out of abusing English and Science when you teach, too?

 

[cyborg]

A spurious accusation. I am using the word "species" as it is used in Evolutionary Biololgy. You are using it any damned way you please to avoid being shown to be wrong.

No ID. I simply understand the species fallacy because I understand the continuum because I understand that species do not exist. Individuals do.

Although it would be interesting for you to explain how you reconsile the 'ring species' problem with the notions you have about species.

That is correct. Innovations in drag research can be applied equally to airplanes and automobiles. Developments in drag efficency in penguins cannot be applied to dolphins.

So how do I apply my Betamax tape to my VHS machine?

Inquiring minds need to know.

I don't see the point of your question.

I know ID. I know you don't.

Factories are not autonomous, but organisms are.

I'm sure Mr Ameoba thinks he's autonomous but his organelles sure disagree.

False analogy.

Null.

 

[articulett]

Firstly, I did not accuse you of deliberately promoting Intelligent Design. Secondly, you're still ignoring the differences between the intention to create change in designers, and an intention-less system of Evolution.

I am accusing you of inadvertently catering to the ID crowd by thinking you understand natural selection when you do not. You are obfuscating understanding just as surely as Mijo is when he says that "there is no evidence for evolution being non-random" or when he calls Dawkins unclear. You aren't saying anything. You are not clarifying evolution or your position--the only thing you are clarifying is that however you learned about evolution, you've created a mental block that creationists can exploit so that people imagine this huge difference between "intelligent" selection processes and natural selection processes and miss the entire continuum as well as the essential similarities. Even if "intelligence of humans" is involved--it's still natural selection honing information over time-- there is no big plan-- only on step forward... The last common ancestor of all humans gave rise to everything that exists today, but his goal would only be to do as he was programmed to do--and apparently that included lots of sex. Who knows what he was "planning"-- but it sure couldn't have been this. This world and all of us evolved via information that was selected by the environment from that moment forth. Lots of potential information existed--most never gets replicated; those that can and do successfully drive the evolution of everything.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I am accusing you of inadvertently catering to the ID crowd by thinking you understand natural selection when you do not. You are obfuscating understanding just as surely as Mijo is when he says that "there is no evidence for evolution being non-random" or when he calls Dawkins unclear. You aren't saying anything. You are not clarifying evolution or your position--the only thing you are clarifying is that however you learned about evolution, you've created a mental block that creationists can exploit so that people imagine this huge difference between "intelligent" selection processes and natural selection processes and miss the entire continuum as well as the essential similarities. Even if "intelligence of humans" is involved--it's still natural selection honing information over time-- there is no big plan-- only on step forward... The last common ancestor of all humans gave rise to everything that exists today, but his goal would only be to do as he was programmed to do--and apparently that included lots of sex. Who knows what he was "planning"-- but it sure couldn't have been this. This world and all of us evolved via information that was selected by the environment from that moment forth. Lots of potential information existed--most never gets replicated; those that can and do successfully drive the evolution of everything.

There are huge differences between things that Evolved and things that were designed. Those differences are so vast and numerous that living things require a special sort of explanation for their divsersity and complextiy, and that explanation is Evolution. I cannot pretend that the two processes are identical, as you do, because the differences between the process explain so much about the peculiarities of living things.