Can Natural Selection Produce Intelligent Design?

I am acquainted with Russell’s

quote:

---

The subject of denoting is of very great importance, not only in logic and mathematics, but also in theory of knowledge. For example, we know that the centre of mass of the solar system at a definite instant is some definite point, which is only known to us by description. The distinction between acquaintance andknowledge about is the distinction between things we have presentations of, and the things we only reach by means of denoting phrases. It often happens that we now that a certain phrase denotes unambiguously, although we have no acquaintance with what it denotes; this occurs in the above case of the centre of mass. In perception we have acquaintance with the objects of perception, and in thought we have acquaintance with objects of more abstract logical character; but we don’t necessarily have acquaintance with the objects denoted by phrases composed of words with whose meaings we are acquainted. To take a very important instance: there seems no reason to believe that we are ever acquainted with other people’s minds, seeing that these are not directly perceived; hence what we know about them is obtained through denoting. All thinking has to start from acquaintance; but it succeeds in thinking about many things with which we have no acquaintance.

---

p43 Bertand Russel Logic and Knowledge Essay 1901-1950Putnam Sonsas being on target with Kant’s Conflict of Faculties page69

quote:

---

For practical purposes we can be quite indifferent as to whether we shall live as pure spirits after death or whether our personal identity in the next world requires the same matter that how forms our body, so that our soul is not a distinct substance and our body must be restored to life. For who is so fond of his body that he would want to drag it around with him for eternity, if he can get along without it? So the apostle’s conclusion: If Christ had not risen (if his body had not come to life), neither would we rise again (we would not continue to live after death) Is not valid. But it may not be a conclusion (for one does not argue on the basis of an inspiration); he may have meant only that we have reason to believe Christ is still alive and that our faith would be in vain if even so perfect a man did not continue to live after (bodily) death. This belief, which reason suggested to him (as to all men), moved him to historical belief in a public event, which he accepted in good faith as true and used as a basis of proof for moral belief in a future life, failing to realize that, apart from his moral belief, he himself would have found it hard to credit this tale.

---

but Wilson escapes the same connotation with an appeal to legislative authority with

quote:

---

Major Transitions of Life The trait-group concept conflicts with the image of an organism as a unit that is adaptive with respect to many traits. After all, an individual organism like a bird eats as a unit, flies as a unit, fights as a unit, and so on. Some animal groups such as social insects colonies are integrated with respect to many traits. Similarly, some human groups organize the lives of their members from cradle to grave. In many other cases, however, groups are adaptive only with respect to one or a few traits. When I use the term organismic in connection with groups, it will be synonymous with adaptive at the group level and will refer to particular traits and the appropriate groupings for those traits, while remaining agnostic about other traits and groupings ^8. The fact that people often participate in many groupings whose adaptiveness must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis will become clear in subsequent chapters.

---

p17 The View From Evolutionary Biology in Darwin’s CathedralKant shewed in Russell's physicality that pictoral based languages AND Aristotelian naming necessity at best provided a UNIT to the organon but Wilson attempts to preview this view a posteriori. The image of the organization would have to be a synthetic a pirori and thus not yet part of symbolic logic IF that viewpoint of the dead body as a mass exists. We are all free to take that however we want in the material of the debate but there are some illegalites on its form, but the fountain with flame comming out of it kitty corner to the bus station in Downtown Greenville is not one of them.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-19-2005 07:41 PM

Thor, I like your comments - what you have to say and the spirit in which it is said. We're not of one mind on the matter yet, but you have prompted me to do a little more research on our friend Homo sapien (Hs). The latest evidence indicates that Hs has been around for about 300,000, but H sapien sapien (Hss), modern man, otherwise known as "thinking man," has been around for only about 100,000 years. This is the intelligent designer we have discussing who exploded upon the scene changing the face of the planet. If we assume that the first life appeared on earth about 3.7 billion years ago and equate that to one year, Hss has been around for the last 14 minutes. During that time all other Hs types (notably Neanderthal man) disappeared, possibly with the help of Hss. Hss migrated to all habitable parts of the earth through his ability to adapt and learn. It was only about 11,000 years ago (less than 2 minutes on our one-year scale) that he started looking like an intelligent designer, moving beyond the survival mode of hunter/gatherer to domesticating animals, agriculture and working metals. And as we would expect of an intelligent designer, he has now traveled to the Moon, cloned plants and animals, produced great works or art, etc., etc. Can we agree that Hss is no ordinary product of natural selection?

Define "ordinary" ;-)Of course, there is absolute no doubt that we are quite unique if you compare us to other products of evolution.However, we always have to add "thus far" and "as far as we know". Or in other words: there are many more eons available in which evolution could (seperately) evolve something of the same level again. And there is an (almost?) infinitely big universe out there that we haven't checked out, and where evolution has undoubtedly also been at work.So from that point of view, it is not so sure that "not ordinary" fits the case.In fact, there are thinkers who will argue that "something of the level of hs" is more or less an inevitable outcome (or intermediate to something better, if you want)of evolution.So personally, I don't feel like agreeing. It's simply inconclusive for the moment.

We're also still a short timer and newbie so the jury is definitely out on whether or not we're successful. After all the flu virus of 1917 spread into almost every habitable area of the globe.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Still making false argument from incredulity.From broken link (no longer works, quoted material kept elsewhere)
Page not found | RAINIER AUDUBON SOCIETY Can we agree that Starlings are no ordinary product of natural selection?

---

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

This site seems to maintain the same text you quoted (based on the limited quote).A different (grimmer!) perspective is here.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

thanks. I will update my bookmark in the article.I am aware of the grimmer side and have no love for starlings. I'll take a single bluebird to a flock of starlings, and have put up many bluebird houses.

---

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

Thanks, one does one’s best. And I am indeed pleased that you have. Up to a point. We are extraordinary in that we have a particular advanced adaptation (ie. brain ability) that no other species has to the extent that we do. Well, none that we are aware of anyway. But even though you could say we are not an ordinary product of NS (natural selection), we still are a product of NS. I could say there are several other products of NS that are extraordinary in their own way. I think that bacteria that survive buried in ice are pretty extraordinary. Then there is the way bats use a radar-like ability for catching prey, that’s rather amazing in my book. And the platypus, what on earth is up with that? I only learned a few years ago that they are venomous, as if they weren’t weird enough already.I could go on listing other traits and adaptations that I think are pretty cool, but I think you get my point. Yes we have an extraordinary ability, but that does not necessarily mean it is superior to others, just different and unique, as are many things in many creatures.

---

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

How can something that comes about by chance be inevitable?

Maybe because it doesn't "come about by chance"?Remember that although mutation is chance, selection is not.Mutation combined with selection produces solutions for certain problems. And convergent evolution illustrates that evolution is able to find certain "best practices" over and over again, independant from each other.Does, one could argue that development of abilities of intelligence is possibly one of those "best practices" which are bound to be discovered by evolution over time.Of course, in case of "intelligence" this is more speculative at this moment than for, for example, the eye or (different types of) wings, because we only have one example. But this could be due to higher complexity that is required before the step becomes an option.

Depends on what level of intelligence you are talking about Every species with a brain is an example of a species that thinksOnce this level is reached it is quite possible that one is more intelligent than the rest, but it is not inevitable, nor is it inevitable what level of intelligence is reached Which means there has to be selection pressure for intelligence for this action to have any results in increased intelligencewhat kind of intelligence results would depend on what was selected for

---

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

There's also the chance circumstances of the environment. If the environment of earth had been different, the evolutionary changes would have been different.

Agreed.But it looks like there is some intelligence "threshold" that has to be passed before the intelligence is able to super-amplify. And it seems like advanced language is what does the trick? Well, I don't pretend to know for sure that human-level intelligence is "inevitable" or "likely". It's just one of the possibilities, that it is somekind of "forced move" once the necessary brain-complexity is in place.At that point, it might simply be a matter of chance. Like: does some organ evolve that happens to 'transform' into a flexible means of communication?

It is possible that a dinosaur like the velociraptor (of movie fame) had a highly developed brain and means of communication. The extinction event kind of precludes making any informed conclusions however.A threshold? a "critical mass"? possibly, but again I think there needs to be a selective pressure to push the envelope, as it were. But we have plenty of evidence of communication between individuals in a large number of species, from whales to elephants to capucin monkeys to bees.What about a selection for creativity instead?See http://EvC Forum: Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species?
for a similar discussion.

---

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

such as no asteroid 65 mya eh?