• 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?

articulett said:
The stuff that does live there (and yes there are things that live in such places) will seem to be amazingly well adapted for living in such places. One, sure wouldn't get the idea that such places are designed with humans in mind.

It is funny the way we see things as fitting together so well, without realizing that things that evolve together and drive eachother's evolution cannot appear any other way.
Click to expand...
That is my point exactly. Life evolves to the prevailing conditions. Scorpions love the conditions in the Sahara. as do penguins in Antarctica.
If the whole planet's conditions were like Antarctica we could not exist, let alone evolve into the self conscious beings we are.
It is the reason why some astrobiologists hope to find some form of life in our solar system, adapted to the prevailing conditions on planets or moons outside the Earth.
 
President Bush said:
The information content of the concepts of both Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution has been reduced in order to retain only information which is relevant for justifying the analogy.
Click to expand...
Apathia said:
But that's how this mote of information is going to succeed in getting itself copied. :)
Click to expand...


For some reasom I'm reminded of the kid who sat behind me in a grade-school class who was so adept at copying - though, perhaps, not actually reading - to the extent that he once not only wrote the same answers as I on a test but actually penciled in my name instead of his. :D
 
mijopaalmc said:
The post you cited (#2142) doesn't actually address my arguments. It just asks a lot of questions.
Click to expand...

Duh! Yes mijo...

Have you even tried to consider why it doesn't address your arguments? Hint: its cos I don't understand what the hell you're on about

Have you even tried to consider why it asks questions? Hint: see above

mijopaalmc said:
In fact, your substitution of the rest of my last post with "onan onan onan", instead of acknowledging that I had defined some of the terms you requested in define, implies that you are still stubbornly unwilling to address the substance of my argument:
Click to expand...

You mean that you inferred as much

I implied that - isolated in your own little world - you are, as per usual, perversely pleasuring yourself in a public forum
 
six7s said:
Duh! Yes mijo...

Have you even tried to consider why it doesn't address your arguments? Hint: its cos I don't understand what the hell you're on about

Have you even tried to consider why it asks questions? Hint: see above

You mean that you inferred as much

I implied that - isolated in your own little world - you are, as per usual, perversely pleasuring yourself in a public forum
Click to expand...

That's funny, because, in the post, the greater part of which you substituted with "onan onan onan", I defined the terms which you wanted me to define, so now it's up to you to actually respond to the argument.
 
Last edited:
fishkr said:
Interesting, but couldn't the space effort be thought of as analogous in nature to random mutation? Generating "long odds" bets at manageable cost?
Click to expand...
The space effort on behalf of man is really a search for origins. The origin of life, if you prefer.
What will the discovery of life in the cosmos do to religion you think?
Mind, I'm not saying intelligent life; just life of some kind, perhaps bacteria, is all it will take to crash the system of belief in a deity who created the cosmos for the benefit of mankind. I only wish i could be around when that day finally arrives. :boggled:
 
mijopaalmc said:
That's funny, because, in the post, the greater part of which you substituted with "onan onan onan", I defined the terms which you wanted me to define, so now its up to you to actually respond to the argument.
Click to expand...

No mijo, you did not define anything, you simply repeated, for the nth time, an incoherent and seemingly meaningless rant

Mijo, I do NOT understand what you are on about

My request (for you to define 'reproduce' in the context of individuals involved in technological development) was (is) aimed at seeking clarification

Until I know what you're on about, I can't even begin to debunk it
 
fishkr said:
No, I think that without an argument there can be no fallacious argument.

You are a cartoon character. Wiley Coyote is what I'm thinking.
Click to expand...
A looser? I would rather be the Roadrunner. :D
 
six7s said:
No mijo, you did not define anything, you simply repeated, for the nth time, an incoherent and seemingly meaningless rant

Mijo, I do NOT understand what you are on about

My request (for you to define 'reproduce' in the context of individuals involved in technological development) was (is) aimed at seeking clarification

Until I know what you're on about, I can't even begin to debunk it
Click to expand...

A technological entity can be said to have reproduced when at least one high fidelity copy has been made.

I suggest that I direct the same question toward articulett and cyborg as they have the ones arguing that imperfect reproduction is the only kind of reproduction needed for evolution to take place.

You also need to stop assuming that what I say is automatically wrong and what you say about it can be called "debunking" in any sense of the word.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
A technological entity can be said to have reproduced when at least one high fidelity copy has been made
Click to expand...

Ummm... ok... fairy nuff, state something banal if you must, but why not answer my question? I am serious here mijo. It seems that you are either overwhelmed by confirmation bias or genuinely incapable of clarifying your own words... from which I infer that you don't actually know what you're talking about... go ahead, blow my inference to smithereens, please!

mijopaalmc said:
You also need to stop assuming that what I say is automatically wrong and what you say about it can be called "debunking" in any sense of the word.
Click to expand...

Umm... No... I need no such thing... you might want me to suspend disbelief... but I don't need to
 
mijopaalmc said:
I just did. It's not my fault you don't like the answer you got.
Click to expand...

Its not that I don't like it mijo, its that you didn't answer MY QUESTION

If you really think you did, please paraphrase my question

mijopaalmc said:
Again, I suggest that, if you don't like the definition that I provided, you ask articulett as she seems perfectly comfortable saying that technology reproduces.
Click to expand...

Again, its not that I don't like it mijo, its just that I don't understand what you are on about... and I strongly suspect that you don't either

NB

My confusion has nothing to do with reproduction

Instead it is your statement about individuals (involved in techno. develpment) who do NOT reproduce... try as I might I have yet to decipher what the hell you're on about
 
mijopaalmc said:
You said that biological evolution and technological development are the same from an information standpoint, and I explained that it was not because only the information that is copied persists in biological evolution whereas the information in technological development does not necessarily have to be copied to persist. Now it's your turn to explain how the two processes can be the same from an information standpoint.
Click to expand...

You're still looking at it from a human perspective.
 
six7s said:
NB

My confusion has nothing to do with reproduction

Instead it is your statement about individuals (involved in techno. develpment) who do NOT reproduce... try as I might I have yet to decipher what the hell you're on about
Click to expand...

You did ask me to define reproduction in that post as well as to clarify what I meant by individuals.

An individual is a copy of a specific variant of technology. It, at least in the context I am using it, has very little to do with the substrate that the meme itself is copied onto.
 
Belz... said:
You're still looking at it from a human perspective.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I have explained to you that when a specific variant fails to reproduce in biological evolution, the information in contained (i.e., its genome) is lost until it can be re-formed by mutation and recombination; however, when when a specific variant fails to reproduce in technological development, the information from which it was constructed (i.e., its blueprint) still exists and is therefore available to inform future iterations of process.

So remind me: How are the two processes "the same from and information perspective"?
 
Last edited:
I don't say "technology reproduces"... I say that information that gets itself copied drives evolution. Moreover, DNA persists even when it's not copied... it's how we solve crimes. Information stored in DNA can exist for some time before degrading... just as information in books never read can still exist.

Mijo goes out of his way to keep from understanding something relatively simple...
And he says he's not an "intelligent design" proponent? He sure has all the obtuseness of one. I see no difference between him and Behe and Kleinman except that he keeps his "intelligent designer" more hidden to try and sound "sciency" while promoting his ignorance.
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by reproduce

To paraphrase:
  • technological development is a process that can incorporate information from individuals that don't reproduce

Please clarify what you mean by 'reproduce'

I assume you're not talking about individuals (who are in some way connected to the technological development of 'widget X') who do not get lucky ;)

Are you talking about individuals who don't pass on information (e.g. views, opinions, facts, figures, etc, etc) about previous iterations of the product?

If so... I don't understand what relevance this has to the discussion and I would (most sincerely) welcome clarification
Click to expand...

mijopaalmc said:
You did ask me to define reproduction in that post as well as to clarify what I meant by individuals
Click to expand...

I can see how you would jump to such a conclusion

Please bear with me whilst I try to emphasise the salient point

six7s said:
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by reproduce
Click to expand...


mijopaalmc said:
An individual is a copy of a specific variant of technology
Click to expand...

Based on my observations of you using ambiguous terms, I assume that EITHER you are being wilfully vague OR English is not your first language

However, I think I now understand what you mean by 'individual'

Thank you

It will take a while for me to figure out what relevance (if any) is to be found within your statement that I paraphrased as "technological development is a process that can incorporate information from individuals that don't reproduce"


mijopaalmc said:
It, at least in the context I am using it, has very little to do with the substrate that the meme itself is copied onto.
Click to expand...

Once again, in all seriousness, I have NO idea what you are on about

How about, rather than detailing what it has "very little to do with", you focus on what (if anything) is relevant to this already most tangential of discussions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom