Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Natural Selection Produce Intelligent Design?
lmrenault
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 75 (232590)
08-12-2005 10:51 AM


Please help me understand this. If I correctly understand classical evolution theory, it asserts that all living organisms descended from a single parent through a process of mutation and natural selection. Not being a scientist, I’m probably not using all the right terminology here but hopefully you'll get the gist. The Homo sapien (Hs) is therefore a product of this process. However Hs seems to be all about intelligent design. He is endowed with an amazingly creative imagination. (And what is imagination?) What he sees in his mind he creates, such as this computer I’m using now and the discussion I’m initiating now. He has totally transformed the environment in which he lives including tinkering with the biology of other living organisms and adding new elements to the periodic table. And of course we could go on and on describing all the other expressions of design that come from Hs in the arts, sciences, language, culture, etc.
But many of us would argue that this very sophisticated intelligent designer, unique on earth’s landscape, has been produced by the evolutionary process that Darwin describes. Can we make sense of this? Can such a super creation as Hs — an intelligent designer - be the product of mutation and natural selection where there is no intelligent design input? Behe talks about irreducible complexity. Hs seems to be an example of ordered, creative complexity taken to the nth degree. I’ll welcome comments on this observation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 08-13-2005 12:16 PM lmrenault has not replied
 Message 4 by jar, posted 08-13-2005 12:28 PM lmrenault has replied
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2005 1:14 PM lmrenault has not replied
 Message 6 by Gary, posted 08-13-2005 5:57 PM lmrenault has not replied
 Message 20 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-14-2005 6:07 PM lmrenault has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 75 (232939)
08-13-2005 8:08 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 75 (232976)
08-13-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lmrenault
08-12-2005 10:51 AM


Evolution is intelligent design
In my opinion, evolution is an intelligent designer.
There is some disagreement with the meaning of "intelligent", and often people associate intelligence with the use of logic. In my opinion, we should be associating intelligence with pragmatic judgement.
Evolution is a system based on pragmatic judgement. It uses trial and error (random mutation) to generate variants of successful organisms. And then it evaluates the results of that trial and error on their success, using natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lmrenault, posted 08-12-2005 10:51 AM lmrenault has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-14-2005 4:38 AM nwr has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 75 (232981)
08-13-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lmrenault
08-12-2005 10:51 AM


But many of us would argue that this very sophisticated intelligent designer, unique on earth’s landscape, has been produced by the evolutionary process that Darwin describes.
Yes, many of us would agree with that statement.
Can we make sense of this? Can such a super creation as Hs — an intelligent designer - be the product of mutation and natural selection where there is no intelligent design input?
Certainly.
Behe talks about irreducible complexity.
Yup. He talks a lot. So far though he has not provided such an example that has withstood examination.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lmrenault, posted 08-12-2005 10:51 AM lmrenault has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by lmrenault, posted 08-14-2005 9:20 AM jar has replied
 Message 39 by deerbreh, posted 08-15-2005 11:24 AM jar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 75 (232991)
08-13-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lmrenault
08-12-2005 10:51 AM


Can we make sense of this?
Why would man need to be the product of intelligent design to be capable of intelligent design?
To argue otherwise seems to suggest that a person is not the source of the ideas that they may have.
We have an amazing capability to make stuff up. What about that can't be explained by evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lmrenault, posted 08-12-2005 10:51 AM lmrenault has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Lizard Breath, posted 08-14-2005 8:49 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 75 (233037)
08-13-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lmrenault
08-12-2005 10:51 AM


If our creativity could not have arisen except by intelligent design, then our creator must also be designed, for he is even more creative than we.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lmrenault, posted 08-12-2005 10:51 AM lmrenault has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 7 of 75 (233122)
08-14-2005 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by nwr
08-13-2005 12:16 PM


nwr writes:
There is some disagreement with the meaning of "intelligent", and often people associate intelligence with the use of logic. In my opinion, we should be associating intelligence with pragmatic judgement.
But there's nothing judging, thus there's no judgment.
Just as there's no intelligence involved when a gas expands to fill its container, there's no intelligence involved when life progresses towards its theoretical maximum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 08-13-2005 12:16 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 12:19 PM DominionSeraph has replied

  
lmrenault
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 75 (233135)
08-14-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
08-13-2005 12:28 PM


OK, so it looks like we agree that intelligent design exists as expressed by our super hero Homo sapien. However, I can’t make the leap of faith (and it is faith — faith in an idea) that assumes that Hs’s capacity for creative imagination is the product of a biological process. In fact (hold your hat) we might want to consider the possibility that this unique capacity has a separate genesis. Here’s why:
Creative design as expressed by Hs has its own unique evolutionary history. It is a very recent history that began after he developed biologically as we know him today. It probably started with the creation of society, then language, then tools & weapons, on to agriculture, the wheel, etc., etc.
Hs is a creator, meaning that he makes things out of nothing. The process starts with an idea (out of nothing) and is translated into a sonnet by Shakespeare or a bicycle. As I understand natural selection, it doesn’t make something out of nothing.
Hs makes choices. This morning I can put on a blue shirt or a red shirt, or no shirt at all. It’s a matter of how I feel, today’s weather forecast, or my sense of style. Natural selection doesn’t make arbitrary choices.
So where did this intelligent design phenomenon, as expressed by Hs, come from? That’s for another discussion topic, but because we don’t have a scientific explanation at this time for a separate genesis for intelligent design should not be reason to dismiss the possibility. And are the sciences the only place to be looking for an explanation?
.....Lance

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 08-13-2005 12:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 08-14-2005 9:30 AM lmrenault has not replied
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2005 9:47 AM lmrenault has replied
 Message 11 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 11:35 AM lmrenault has replied
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 08-14-2005 4:21 PM lmrenault has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 9 of 75 (233136)
08-14-2005 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by lmrenault
08-14-2005 9:20 AM


However, to say that man's creative process is MORE than a biological process is also a leap of faith.
We can demonstrate that actions are dependant on the brain. Destroy parts of the brain, and certain actions are less likely. Anybody looking at how a bar of steel through the brain of Phineas Gage can
see that the brain controled his choices and personality.
Trying to say 'Intelligent design' was from natural causes is not properly defining what 'intelligent design' is. I would call it 'Effective design', not intelligent design.
That design comes from being needing survival. Those traits that promoted survival of the species were promoted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by lmrenault, posted 08-14-2005 9:20 AM lmrenault has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 75 (233138)
08-14-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by lmrenault
08-14-2005 9:20 AM


However, I can’t make the leap of faith (and it is faith — faith in an idea) that assumes that Hs’s capacity for creative imagination is the product of a biological process.
No, what takes faith is the idea that man's creative output is somehow so fundamentally different than the material world that a natural process can't be the explanation.
It's your position which is faith-based, not ours. Furthermore you betray an ignorance of the creative process.
Hs is a creator, meaning that he makes things out of nothing.
Nobody makes things out of nothing. Shakespeare wrote his sonnets, drawing on a hundred years of Italian sonnet poetry. He wrote his plays drawing on centuries of pre-existing drama. In some cases he outright plagarized popular comedies and gave them his own slight twist.
Like evolution, the human creative process is not one of creation ex nihilo, but of slight, successive modifications of what came before.
Natural selection doesn’t make arbitrary choices.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Why do all products of natural selection and random mutation have to share every character of those two processes? Are you suggesting that your choices and ideas must have an origin seperate from your brain? That they come from outside you, somewhere?
Why can't natural selection give rise to characters different from natural selection? You're going to have to defend that point before we're prepared to accept the rest of your argument.
And are the sciences the only place to be looking for an explanation?
Aside from rational empiricism, by what other means would we arrive at reliable information about the universe? Nothing else has the power to distinguish fact from make-believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by lmrenault, posted 08-14-2005 9:20 AM lmrenault has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by lmrenault, posted 08-14-2005 10:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 75 (233152)
08-14-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by lmrenault
08-14-2005 9:20 AM


Check out Bowerbird Nesting habits. They fit all of your criteria. They begin with an idea, the create something that exhibits a unique plan, they show selection in choosing the materials by shape or size of color.
So creative design is not unique to hS.
Creative design as expressed by Hs has its own unique evolutionary history. It is a very recent history that began after he developed biologically as we know him today.
As we learn more and more the time limits get pushed further and further back. It certainly looks like many of the primate species other than hS would also qualify.
So there are many critters that would meet all three of your criteria.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by lmrenault, posted 08-14-2005 9:20 AM lmrenault has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by lmrenault, posted 08-14-2005 10:18 PM jar has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 12 of 75 (233158)
08-14-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by DominionSeraph
08-14-2005 4:38 AM


But there's nothing judging, thus there's no judgment.
Well, fair enough.
We are looking at this from different perspectives. You apparently want there to be a conscious agent before you will say that judgement is being exercised.
I see that as somewhat problematic. For if you look at a single neuron, then on the same basis you would have to say that there is no judgement there either. And human decisions are merely the combined effect of all of those neurons. So the logical conclusion would seem to be that there is no judgement and no intelligence in people, either.
I'm looking at judgement as the outcome of a process, rather than the decision of a conscious agent. I suppose this comes from my interest in artificial intelligence and cognitive science. I am wanting to be able to consider intelligence as arising from a community of simple judging processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-14-2005 4:38 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ramoss, posted 08-14-2005 2:45 PM nwr has replied
 Message 17 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-14-2005 4:52 PM nwr has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 13 of 75 (233172)
08-14-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nwr
08-14-2005 12:19 PM


It seems you are starting at the ending point, and then working backwards.
Since evolution is 'non-directed' except for the filter of natural selection, that is giving you invalid conclusions.. since you are assumping that conciousness is the goal of evolution, rather than just one of potentially paths that evolution could take.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 12:19 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 4:07 PM ramoss has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 14 of 75 (233181)
08-14-2005 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ramoss
08-14-2005 2:45 PM


It seems you are starting at the ending point, and then working backwards.
I'm not sure what problem you are seeing. It seems to me that Darwin started with the ending point (a diversity of species), and worked backwards to come up with his theory of Evolution.
Since evolution is 'non-directed' except for the filter of natural selection, that is giving you invalid conclusions.
Do explain which invalid conclusions you are referring to.
Apparently we both agree that evolution is directed. You admit that reluctantly with "except for the filter of natural selection," while I embrace that directedness in natural selection as a simple example of natural intelligence.
since you are assumping that conciousness is the goal of evolution, rather than just one of potentially paths that evolution could take.
No, I am not assuming that. I wonder what gave you that idea.
If your idea of intelligence is based on the planning and such like, coming from conscious agents, then intelligence and consciousness becomes difficult to explain. In my opinion, it's that way of looking at intelligence that gives rise to creationism, ID and similar theories. I'm trying to avoid that. I want to judge intelligence purely by the behavior, without any assumption of a conscious agent and without any requirement of specific planning for the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ramoss, posted 08-14-2005 2:45 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 08-14-2005 4:32 PM nwr has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 75 (233183)
08-14-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by lmrenault
08-14-2005 9:20 AM


If man's intelligence is so super compared to all other animals then how do you explain the dolphin silver ring?
http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html
or is it just a difference in degree and not in the structure of intelligence?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by lmrenault, posted 08-14-2005 9:20 AM lmrenault has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024