|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Have complex human-made things been designed? | |||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
All that matters to me is that "if there was no human involvement, then there would be no windows XP".
It's a nice way of looking at it, an interesting way, that might perhaps alleviate the concerns of a Theistic evolutionist, if they are to believe in an active God making new species, (new programs). But logically, ultimately, you do not get anything at all without the intelligence-factor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
Hi all. I'd like to step in at this point.
All that matters to me is that "if there was no human involvement, then there would be no windows XP". In this universe, your claim is absolutely true. However, this depends on the universe having the exact same physical laws as now. If the 4 main forces had been any different, reality might be hugely different. I've read somewhere that if the parameters were changed, the universe might be made up of numbers and the dominant species would be self-generating algebraic equations. By the way, have you heard of the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit?
Dawkins' name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. This is an allusion to Hoyle's fallacy. Fred Hoyle reportedly stated that the "probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."[2] The basic argument against empirical theism dates back at least to David Hume, whose objection can be popularly stated as "Who designed the designer?", but according to Daniel Dennett the innovation of Dawkins' argument is, first, to show that where design fails to explain complexity, evolution by natural selection succeeds and is the only workable solution, and, second, to argue how this should illuminate the confusion surrounding the anthropic principle.[3]
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit - Wikipedia But logically, ultimately, you do not get anything at all without the intelligence-factor. I would like to point out that this is the perception that there is a staunch difference between life and inanimateness (yes, it is now a word), as well as a difference between intelligence and...well...lack of intelligence. The truth is: there isn't. All things are made up of certain chemicals and reactions and life just takes it one step further. As for intelligence, all animals, not just humans, have brains and some like monkeys or dolphins can find patterns or use of cognitive thinking. In addition, plants, fungi, protists and bacteria have the ability to reproduce and use food, so that is at least some form of unconscious action. Please define what you think "intelligence" is. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."- Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
So the conclusion is that all human-made complex things have been evolved and not designed. A more accurate description would be that they were designed from an evolving state of ideas. They were both designed and evolved. What's your point, though? "The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:The observations would seem to confirm this statement. quote:It seems they were. All observation points to human intelligence designing those objects. quote:Obviously that's true. quote:Actually, none have been evolved in the sense you are thinking of. quote:With or without an intelligent input? With an anitelligent input, obviously. That is why they are called designed. The mechanism of how they were actually designed is irrelevant. But they did infact come about by directed intelligent cause. Not an undirected natural cause, like people assert that is evolution. quote:But they are able to design. And natural processes are not. That's the point. quote:Yes, with a constant input form an intelligent source. Not an undirected natural source. Again, that is the point. quote:But they did design other thing. quote:But they did eventually design XP and Vista, and soon, Windows 7. Nature has never been observed to come close to that. quote:Actually it was the intelligence of the programmers who built Windows XP. You are going of track here. The availability and profit-gain of a program has nothing to do with human ability to make one. If the market is not ready for some piece of software, it's not going to be made. But that doesn't mean it can't be made. On the other hand, there were no observations of nature ever doing anything as complex as Windows XP. quote:Again, this has nothing to do with intelligence's abillity to actualy make the program. This has more to do with profits. Is the program profitable or not. If it is, it's going to be released, if not, than it's not going to be released. This has nothing to do with undirected natural processes making complex objects like Windows XP. quote:Yes, through an effor of a lot of intelligent sources, i.e. people. quote:Again, yes, and the next invention is the improvemnet of the previous one by an intelligent input. Not an unintelligent one. quote:Depends on what you mean by "much more complex". quote:Depends on how you define evolved, and designed. If by evolved you mean undirected nautral cause, than no, you are obviously wrong. If by evolved you mean sligh intelligent inouts over time, that yes, you are right. But int that case, that is also the definition of a designed object. Regardless of the mechanism that brought it about. quote:Exactly, seems, they were all designed. The only thing we don't know is by which mechanism and how long did it take. But they were designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Simonster Junior Member (Idle past 5346 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
quote:I think this is the equivalent of natural selection. Without natural selection evolution wouldn't make much progress. It is the same with market selection, if every product could be sold, there wouldn't be much incentive to make a better one (see communism). quote:I agree with the first part, Windows XP was intelligently designed from existing parts by humans. And although I think there are a lot of similarities to evolution, like selection and mutation, there are also many differences. The product and "designer", for example, is one and the same in nature. Changes between one "stable version" and the next are thus very small. Human made products on the other hand, can change dramatically between stable versions, because man made products aren't subject to selection before they are finished (ignoring exceptions for brevity's sake). So I agree with everything you've said about human made products. But I disagree with the following:
quote:Why do you think that? Comparison: Human design:Humans change existing products to form new products that are different from the old one. Market selection weeds out the bad products, only the good remain. As a result, products get better and better. Natural "design"Organism change when they reproduce to form new organism that are different from the old one. Natural selection weeds out the bad organisms, only the good remain. As a result, organism get better and better (at reproducing). So while there are completely different mechanisms at work and a different goal, the result (change of products or organisms over time) is the same. So a natural explanation (the ToE) explains what we see without the need for a designer. Edited by Simonster, : No reason given. Edited by Simonster, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:But in the case of market, the product's lifespan is guided by an intelligence of consumers. In nature, no intelligence is guiding natural selection. quote:It doesnt' since natural selection is not guided by an intelligence. And if it is not, it can't perform any better than blind chance. It's useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It doesnt' since natural selection is not guided by an intelligence. And if it is not, it can't perform any better than blind chance. It's useless.
Useless, eh? OK, here is the challenge--roll 25 dice and get all sixes from them. Your approach seems to require rolling all 25 dice over and over again until they all come up sixes. You'll be there for years. Another approach, and that followed by natural selection, is to roll the dice and then re-roll only those that are not sixes. You'll be done in a couple of minutes. This is analogous to natural selection as in each generation (each roll of the dice) those that don't measure up are eliminated, while those that are adequate survive. Doesn't sound that useless to me, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:That's a great way to get there I agree. The only problem is that natural selection is not working that way. I mean, it is, but for fitness. It selects this way for fitness. But fitness is not correlated with biological functions. Therefore natural selection is not selecting single nucleotides and building new biological functions, it's is selecting for fitness. Therefore natural selection is still useless for evolving new biological functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Therefore natural selection is still useless for evolving new biological functions. Can you clarify as to what exactly you mean by "biological functions".
It selects this way for fitness Can you clarify as to exactly what you mean by "fitness"?
But fitness is not correlated with biological functions Bearing in mind the clarifications above what exactly do you mean by this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:That is what proteins do in our bodies to keep us alive. For an example ATP synthase makes energy for the cell in the form of adenosine triphosphate. quote:Here you go: quote:Fitness - Wikipedia(biology) quote:It means that just becasue natural selection will select for the most fit, it doesn't mean it will in the same time be selecting to form new biological functions in the population. Simply because it is not doing that, it's selecting for most fit. And most fit have nothing to do with new biological functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
And most fit have nothing to do with new biological functions. What if a newly evolved or slightly modified "biological function" increases the fitness of an individual to survive and reproduce?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:New biological functions do not evolve. But slightly modified functions do push the fitness up. That would still not make natural selection select for the evolution of new biological functions, because the fit ones that do get selected are not selected in a way to produce new biological functions. Natural selection only searches those who are more fit than others, without trying to select for evolution of new functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
New biological functions do not evolve. But slightly modified functions do push the fitness up. Well how many slight changes does it take before the function is "new" as compared to the original starting point?
That would still not make natural selection select for the evolution of new biological functions, because the fit ones that do get selected are not selected in a way to produce new biological functions. Nope. I don't get it. If a modification of "function" results in increased "fitness" why will this change not permeate the population in time?
Natural selection only searches those who are more fit than others, without trying to select for evolution of new functions. If "functions" increase "fitness" then I fail to see how natural selection would not promote both? I am limiting myself to your terminology here. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Never. Because no new information is added. quote:It will. But it won't lead to evolution of new molecular machines like ATP synthase. It's very simple. Natural selection selects for fitness, not for molecular machines that don't yet exist.
quote:That is because form better fitness you do not need new information. But for new functions you do. And natural selection can't get you new information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So you agree that "functions" can be modified.
You seem also to agree that modified "functions" that increase "fitness" will prevail. No?
That is because form better fitness you do not need new information. But for new functions you do. And natural selection can't get you new information. Define information. And why do you think it (whatever it is that you define as "information") cannot increase? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024