Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 76 of 96 (284417)
02-06-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jar
02-06-2006 11:58 AM


Re: What is the rationale?
LOVE IT!!! Consise, precise and complete. The question is answered in two words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 02-06-2006 11:58 AM jar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 77 of 96 (284419)
02-06-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by inkorrekt
02-06-2006 11:54 AM


Re: What is the rationale?
You replied to yourself but I presume meant to reply to Modulous.
He answered this. Jar has answered it more succintly.
To rephrase it a third time. The designer also designed a very non stable Earth environment. In that environment non-evolvable means total extinction over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 11:54 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 96 (284423)
02-06-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by inkorrekt
02-06-2006 11:54 AM


Re: What is the rationale?
My only question is does it take more intelligence or less intelligence to design NON EVOLVABLE things.
What is the advantage of designing only evolvable things compared to non evolvables?
That's two questions. The rationale for designing evolvable things is:
an intelligent designer would be able to design lineages of animals, plants, bacteria etc. that responds to changes in the environment, so that the intelligent designer don't have to say "Duh! The giraffes [or insert other intelligently designed creature of your choice here] went extinct because of a 1 degree temperature rise again! Oh well, back to the drawing board."
Which requires more intelligence? I don't think the question has an answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 11:54 AM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:32 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 85 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:27 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 86 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:30 PM Modulous has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 79 of 96 (285359)
02-09-2006 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
02-06-2006 3:10 PM


Re: What is the rationale?
Answer is simple. I do not want to use the word, CREATION though it conveys more meaning. I will only use the word INVENTION. For any invention of evolvable or non evolvable, it always requires intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 02-06-2006 3:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2006 10:41 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 81 by Brad McFall, posted 02-10-2006 6:18 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 96 (285362)
02-09-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by inkorrekt
02-09-2006 10:32 PM


Re: What is the rationale?
Answer is simple. I do not want to use the word, CREATION though it conveys more meaning. I will only use the word INVENTION. For any invention of evolvable or non evolvable, it always requires intelligence.
I don't think that's on-topic here, though I'd be happy to explore it elsewhere. The point being made is that an intelligent designer would have designed life to be adaptable, to evolve. Not designing life this way would not seem to be intelligent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:32 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by inkorrekt, posted 02-11-2006 6:47 PM Modulous has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 81 of 96 (285710)
02-10-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by inkorrekt
02-09-2006 10:32 PM


Re: What is the rationale?
The interesting thing is that Agassiz suggested (and this was over 100 yrs ago please note) that there was a difference between “invention” and “tracing” and so he held that an ultimate biology and creation point was for man to find out any “premeditation” on God’s part, perhaps by natural theology etc. He emphatically emphasized that we DID NOT have this knowledge or anything like it (changing tracing into invention and back into tracing again in the design etc) but it was because of specific lack of physical knowledge about organisms themselves. It seems to me that the changes in science since that time might indeed permit the designer of life forms (whether by engineering or witnessing the spread of diversity comparing ever increasing regions etc) to “create” or “invent” or “trace” provided there is some limit given to infinite approaches of the unconditioned through a material coordination of physical impenetrability the any possible codable mutation effect/affect. Without stating that this happens by God through man or by man under an imperative , by avoiding evil actions or by chance clanking of flasks in a lab, or simply by man tricking the mind of the smartest Dr. Evil biologist
If however one took Gould’s or Mayr’s Harvardian direction with respect to a former same chair holder, then there would be no need to make the distinction between tracing and invention. I think that that nature traces and man invents and thus RETRACES from nature by God whatever God(s) already did but depending on how far one is down the drawing board will return a different emphasis on “create”, “trace”, “blueprinted” , “patentable” etc even when the topic is NOT God’s creation persay ON TOPIC (one can still move the action of God back into the brain’s mind further if there is a question about shifting term from “creation” to “invent” via create. The problem is actually more specific than the thread has been able to delimit. In particular for me it depends on if biologists really do nothing more than trace the actions of non-human organisms but the notion of artifical selection makes this part,very hard to separate off theoretically when in other threads the discussion does not lead to these kinds of problems.
We have not sythnesized the design of evolvable things in the sense I have contributed in this thread but I think I have sporadically taken apart the possibilities into components THAT IF - THEN analytically far enough. There is not a simple opposite relation however as it seems INkorreKT wanted us to consider. I will respond to Percy in another thread to indicate what kinds of things are needed to show the differences that remain separated but should not be forced apart.
Modulous’ schism between adaptability and evolvability is a bit tricky. This seems to me to depend on a posteriori information about the limits or lack of limits to directional selection( and the different CAUSAL contribution of artifical vs natural selection ( when distinguishing an intelligent adaptation of a former lineage vs setting a reproductive connection free into unknown niche and actual physical space evolving) and I have never seen any work that either verifies or disqualifies this form of reasoning about inheritance. If one built a fence around a moon of Jupiter and could blow up the whole planet if the expt got out of space and set self adaptable self-replicators into the moon with say a specific goal to both evolve in whatever direction (within that geography)(to provide potential future raw evolved material)(and adapt for known environmental conditions immediately adjacent but different than here) then this would be like using capital to increase a businsess’s potential future and that seems “intelligent” to me. The intelligence then is in the physical environmental contribution to biological change not the reproductive elements that cross the time barrier to this future.
If money was not an issue and any moon expendable then one could simply do trial and error and that seems just as intelligent as trying to retrace adaptations into other places by niche construction or not.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-10-2006 06:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:32 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 82 of 96 (285888)
02-11-2006 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Modulous
02-09-2006 10:41 PM


Re: What is the rationale?
Why should it be adaptable? Is it because, it fits in the theory of Evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2006 10:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2006 7:03 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 84 by jar, posted 02-11-2006 7:21 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 83 of 96 (285891)
02-11-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by inkorrekt
02-11-2006 6:47 PM


Re: What is the rationale?
Why should it be adaptable? Is it because, it fits in the theory of Evolution?
Well no, that wouldn't make sense. If it wasn't adaptable, then a basic environment change would lead to massive, global killing, extinctions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by inkorrekt, posted 02-11-2006 6:47 PM inkorrekt has not replied

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


Message 84 of 96 (285896)
02-11-2006 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by inkorrekt
02-11-2006 6:47 PM


Re: What is the rationale?
Asked and answered. See Message 75.
Why do you keep asking the same question when you have been answered?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by inkorrekt, posted 02-11-2006 6:47 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 85 of 96 (285975)
02-12-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
02-06-2006 3:10 PM


adaptation
Is adaptation an acquired characteristic or is it inborn? In the genetic make up, all the information is preconstructed. When ever there is a need, then the adaptive mechanisms take over. For example, if we live in a cold place and move to a hot place like Phoenix, our thermostatic mechanisms trigger sweating response.There is no need for micro evolution.
This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-12-2006 04:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 02-06-2006 3:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 02-12-2006 3:32 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 93 by Brad McFall, posted 03-06-2006 1:34 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 86 of 96 (285976)
02-12-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
02-06-2006 3:10 PM


Re: What is the rationale?
Why are we looking at lineage? Why cannot we design only one species? Is it because we want to prove Evolutionary scale? Adaptation to the environment has been beautifully observed through the ecological balance. Each species is dependent on the other one. The entire animal kingdom is an example of adaptation. Such a complex process could not have evolved. They all ought to have occured at once everything in its own rightful place and function. This is so amazing. This makes lot of sense to me.
This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-12-2006 03:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 02-06-2006 3:10 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2006 3:34 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 89 by nwr, posted 02-12-2006 3:38 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 87 of 96 (285978)
02-12-2006 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 3:27 PM


intelligently designing evolution
an intelligent designer would be able to design lineages of animals, plants, bacteria etc. that responds to changes in the environment,
Exactly, they should be able to respond to changes in the environment. Populations do this through a process called evolution.
Why are we looking at lineage? Why cannot we design only one species? Is it because we want to prove Evolutionary scale?
I don't understand. The designer may well have designed one species (and designed it to be evolvable into the many we see today). Is that what you are saying?
Adaptation to the environment has been beautifully observed through the ecological balance. Each species is dependent on the other one. The entire animal kingdom is an example of adaptation. Such a complex process could not have evolved. They all ought to have occured at once.
Fine, evolution could not have evolved. Are you saying that evolution was designed? That's basically is the topic of this thread.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 12-February-2006 08:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:27 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 11:28 PM Modulous has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 88 of 96 (285979)
02-12-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 3:30 PM


Why are we looking at lineage? Why cannot we design only one species? Is it because we want to prove Evolutionary scale? Adaptation to the environment has been beautifully observed through the ecological balance. Each species is dependent on the other one. The entire animal kingdom is an example of adaptation. Such a complex process could not have evolved. They all ought to have occured at once everything in its own rightful place and function. This is so amazing. This makes lot of sense to me.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
The topic is about designing species that can evolve. Any existing or past adaptation to a specific set of conditions isn't the topic.
By the way, saying "Such a complex process could not have evolved." is something very hard to support. You many not understand how it could have but I am comfortable that it can. If all you have is your own lack of knowledge to support your ideas don't expect them to be taken seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:30 PM inkorrekt has not replied

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


Message 89 of 96 (285980)
02-12-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 3:30 PM


Re: What is the rationale?
Each species is dependent on the other one. The entire animal kingdom is an example of adaptation. Such a complex process could not have evolved.
Why could they not have evolved?
I find it far more plausible that they could have evolved, than that they were intelligently designed.
They all ought to have occured at once everything in its own rightful place and function.
But they didn't. That's just one of the problems with ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 3:30 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 90 of 96 (292562)
03-05-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Modulous
02-12-2006 3:32 PM


Re: intelligently designing evolution
Here we go again"
"The Designer May Have". Why cannot some one come and say with real proof that this is how it happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 02-12-2006 3:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2006 7:00 AM inkorrekt 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