Evolution is most likely a part of intelligent design

kent75 Complexity is hardly an arguement for a hidden intelligence since complex things are governed by simple laws that follow naturally from the makeup ofthe universe.

On each message in the lower right is a LGRB (Little Green Reply Button). If you use that instead of the General Reply button found at the lower left it will link your reply to the message you are replying to, and, if the other author has reply notification turned on, send that person a notification.The LGRB is your friend. Sorry but that has never been shown. Again, No One has ever been able to provide any evidence in support of that assertion. Why?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

kent75 Neither. There's a Tao directing all of this. Next question._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Title.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

There was an interesting outcome to genetic algorithm experiments in which evolutionary processes were used to evolve an amplifier design out of a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). The resulting amplifier was irreducibly complex.Complexity is one of the characteristics of the products of evolution.

How about considering the fact that intelligence and design are a natural evolutionary phenomenon. That is a fact. We are proof of it. The question everyone should be asking is: do we define the entire process through our window or do we take into consideration the fact that we are but one step in the process. The latter is more reasonable and scienctific. The former is specie disgressionary and typically humanly egocentric. The latter should be the basis on how the concept of ID is approached. It begs the questions: is intelligence and design a result of the process?, a part of the process? or, at the root of the process? It is a precarious subject however because it does invite religious engadgement. There are those here who are very passionate about the existance or non existance of a higher power.
The discussions suffer for it as does the very reasonable concept I have stated. I believe the ID label to now be detrimental to the concept. It carries too much baggage. One can embrace my understanding and still respect the rights of others in terms of what they believe to be responsible for initiating the process. Any answer arrived at concerning an origin will be unscientific as there will be no evidence. That aspect should be discussed philosophically.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

First, let me stipulate that DNA is not a blueprint, but more like a kind of recipe. A blueprint implies an exact description of what something is going to look like. You can't make a blueprint for a house that's been demolished by a hurricane, for the obvious reason that it's impossible to predict the exact damage a hurricane will do. But you can build a house in Florida, according to specifications that do not take hurricanes into account. That's what might be called "a recipe for disaster".But actually, I want to talk about those "instructions" you mentioned. Please consider the following.When a glass falls to the floor, it breaks. That's what anybody would expect to happen, isn't it? It just happens. Nobody in his right mind would suppose that somewhere in the glass, when it's still in one piece, there are instructions that specify what happens to the glass when it falls to the ground. That's a ridiculous idea, and I think you'd have a hard time trying to find anybody who would disagree. (Come to think of it though, when you're from America, I guess anything is possible...)Well, just as no instructions are needed for a glass to break when it falls to the floor, no instructions are needed for imperfect replicators to evolve into something more complex under selective pressure. If there are imperfect replicators, and they replicate imperfectly in an environment where there is selective pressure, then logic dictates that these imperfect replicators evolve. It's what must happen in these circumstances. And since the products of evolution become themselves part of the increasingly complex system that exerts the selective pressure - in a kind of feedback loop - it is also inevitable that simple things evolve in the direction of increasing complexity. Given imperfect replication under selective pressure (also known as mutation and natural selection), evolution, and with it, increasing complexity, are the inevitable consequences.They are just as inevitable as the fact that a glass with no support in a gravitional field with a concrete floor underneath is going to break. And this inherent inevitability obviates the need for built-in instructions.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Welcome to the fray kent75 Of course.Diests (and others) considered this even before evolution was developed by Darwin and Wallace and others into a science. Science explains the how but not the why eh?The problem is that the modern ID movement (a) does not take their concept to the logical conclusion of what is, and what isn't, evidence for design in the universe, and (2) only want to use "IDology" to attack evolution rather than present a viable alternative. How do you know that there isn't life already existing on those planets? Intelligent life?The only "direction" that is embedded in DNA is to reproduce, making new packages of DNA (organisms). After that mutation and natural selection accounts for the diversity of life -- according to evolution, which you now posit as being "part of Intelligent Design" and which would be included when you take the concept to it's logical conclusion. Why is it necessary to evolve "human" life rather than just successful life? If that life is also intelligent and can communicate with other intelligent life then that is bonus eh?Certainly you cannot expect them to also speak english ... You are aware that this is the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc? Assuming that {what currently exists} is due just to DNA?Tell me, what was the DNA "plan" for dinosaurs? What was their role in the development of human intelligence? What is "too complex"? What is "complexity" anyway? How do you measure it? Wouldn't simplicity be a better measure of design? - No extraneous parts?Certainly our ancestors 2000 years ago were incapable of making the technologies that we currently have, and yet they are as much Homo sapiens as we are. Were they not complex enough?How much less would we need to have to not be too complex? Note that the more intelligent apes that have been tested have more intelligence than the least intelligent humans.Enjoy.ps: if you use {peek mode} when replying you can see how other posts are formated to see how certain effects are done.type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'll try to ask some questions that might get me to understand this much better. Are a species 'instincts' embedded in DNA? How do instincts get passed down? Insects don't have much of a brain but seem to know exactly what to do with themselves, for example honey bees, ants, and caterpillars/butterflies.I'm trying to understand this better as I think what I'm trying to say is that in my opinion, it seems that one theory could be that basic organisms somehow are programmed with instructions (whether it's an accidental programming or done by an 'intelligent designer') to evolve to changing conditions. then, through selection, by pure chance an intelligent life is able to to evolve to the point that it can ponder it's own existence and debate it.so to understand the board better, evolution vs. intelligent designer (is that the same as 'creationist'?), is the basic question did life develop on earth 'by accident' or did another entity / entities play a roll in it?

Bacteria have even less, and yet they respond to different stimulii with different behavior. That is really all "instinctual" behavior is -- response to a stimulii.Often this is chemical - taste, smell, consumed by the organism - but it can also be changing light and heat levels.It's not so much in the DNA as it is in the response of the developed organism. You can think of the stimulii as providing energy to a system. If it is pre-preprogramed then the same result always comes out. But are both correct eh? Another name for this is "mutationism" where the changes are in some way directed.This is not necessary to achieve both diversity AND adaptation to changing conditions.All that is needed is a system that creates many random variations on a theme and another system that selects the ones that are best adapted to the changing conditions.The first is called random mutation, the second is called natural selection (survival and sexual selection). Not pure chance -- the best adaptations are selected. As the "arms race" between prey and predator escalates from generation to generation to ones that are most adaptable to changing conditions of environment and their predators and prey will be selected.Intelligence is a by-product of creative adaptations.It is virtually inevitable that intelligence will arise eh? Look at the problem solving ability of so many species, from octopus to bear to squirrel to seagull.The system of evolution will select for it.No hidden DNA code required. No directed mutationism required. Do you think it is? Certainly the current examples of IDology is that it is the same as creationism, but does it need to be so restrained?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Do you have a link to that? that is good evidence that 'irreducibly complex' is not evidence for an intelligent designer.

I'll have to look it up again. Unfortunately, it's in an engineering trade journal, EE Times, several years ago. Colin Johnson is a regular contributor and several of his articles deal with robotics, AI, and genetic algorithms.In the amplifier circuit in question, although the hardware basis for it was digital circuitry, it evolved to make use of the analog characteristics of that circuitry. Any changes a human tried to make to it would cause it to no longer work.

No, logic does not dictate this. We still do not understand why a certain group of chemical reactions based around the element carbon developed into a self replicating phenomenon. Nor do we understand why these replications first began evolving to "survive". Chemical reactions take place all the time. No other chemical reactions result in an evolutionary process that I am aware of. There is nothing logical to be understood about it as of yet. We are clueless as to why what we call organics resulted in evolution. Selective pressures happen to everything. Everything interacts with it's environment. So is the organic process unique or does the universe follow this process? Evolution is happening all around us?
Whergo the ergo? Really? It was inevitable that random chemical reactions would need "instructions"? Inevitable? Where do you cipher this great revelation from? You speak as if this was an inherant property of the ingredients of the organic process. There is no evidence for such a claim.

2ice, please pay attention to what is posted.The parts you are quoting are discussing biological evolution NOT the development of the imperfect replicating chemicals from other chemicals.The dicussion will progress more rapidly if you actually read what you are replying to.

But that's not what I said. We may indeed not understand (yet) how replication starts, but once it does ("if there are imperfect replicators"), if it is imperfect (which is the case with the replication of DNA), and if there is selective pressure (which is the case in an environment of limited resources), then the only possible future for these replicators is one of evolution. Logic does indeed dictate that. It seems as though you are saying that replicators gradually became survivors, that they evolved into survivors. But that's an incoherent notion. In order for that to happen, they already have to be survivors. You cannot evolve into a survivor: if you evolve, you are a survivor. That's because chemical reactions per se are not enough. You need replication. And even that is not enough, you need your replication to be imperfect, or differential. And then you need selection. It's quite a shopping list, but once you've got all that, evolution is guaranteed to happen. No, we're not. You are confusing your own ignorance with what science does or does not know. We know that in organic chemistry there are molecules capable of being copied. We know that this copying process is not always perfect. We know that resources in the environment are limited. We know that some copies are better at acquiring those resources than others. All of these circumstances coming together inexorably lead to a process of evolution, there is no way around it. We know that these circumstances pertain in organic chemistry, therefore we know "why" - I'd rather say "how" - this resulted in evolution.What we don't know (yet) is how this process bootstrapped itself from a world without replication, although Richard Dawkins describes a plausible scenario involving clay, in "The Blind Watchmaker". Yes, everything interacts with its environment, but not everything replicates, let alone imperfectly. Selective pressure alone is not enough. (Remember the shopping list?) So, not everything around us evolves, only those things that replicate imperfectly. It seems you do not know what the word 'obviate' means. Let me rephrase: the inherent inevitability I spoke of means that there is no need for instructions.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

They are both correct in that they are equivalent. There is no real mystery. If you REALLY want to show similar mathematical statements that blow away someones paradigm of reality then use1+1=2 (in Z)
1+1=0 (in Z%2)Rather than your caveat being that the number is simply transformed by a different base, you are instead using an entirely different group of numbers! =)I love telling people that 1+1=0 in the smallest and simplest definition of a group of numbers that we know of.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)