Can Natural Selection Produce Intelligent Design?

from http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.htmlyour specie-ism is showing ...

---

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

'Independent choice' is likely an illusion caused by the fact that your brain can't model itself at anything even approaching full complexity. Even constructing an extremely simplified model is problematic, as we can't see what it's doing.

I'm perhaps not seeing your point there. Formal logic deals with form, not with what is signified. If there is a way to harness logic chips to deal with what is signified, rather than with the form (the output level), then how to do this has not yet been discovered.I'll skip a couple of your other comments, and get to this: I think you are saying that, for a trial and error experiment, the sensor would report whether success or error, and the logic circuit would only have to deal with the signal from the sensor.That's fine. But I would say that the sensor is exercising judgement in that case, while the logic circuit is still just doing a deterministic mechanical operation on its input. The sensor is what interacts with the world, and the sensor is in some sense tuned to what its output signifies. The logic circuit is just acting on form (output level).A book report was just posted as Message 1. In that book, Andy Clark is arguing for the role of interactions, and that just logic isn't enough. What I have been saying is along the same lines.I think we are drifting a little too far from the thread topic. We should be discussing whether natural selection can produce something like human intelligence. Let's not get too involved in speculation about what could work to achieve AI.

I'm talking about an XOR gate comparing the sensor output to the logic circuit's output. If output of XOR = 1, the logic circuit hasn't sucessfully predicted the output of the sensor. Can then flag that circuit design as not working, and try another.

The you are talking about trial and error testing circuits, where I was talking about trial and error testing behavior (interactions with the world). I think we might be talking past one another.

I'm talking about trial and error testing judgment.

You don't seem to have a problem with 0 signifying 'false'.
You want to see how it can signify 'indeterminate'? Have the low activate an alternate route. Thus, we have the proper behavior for when one method fails to give us an unusable answer -- try another method. (The low is usable -- just not usable to signify either true or false, as it doesn't.)If all the premises are true but the inference invalid, the best alternative method would be to just use a valid inference.

Hi Guys. Please excuse my intrusion into a topic about which you are obviously very passionate - logic, circuits, etc. But is this thread on man as an intelligent designer the right one for your discussion?
....OP

What, you don't find the mousetrap convincing?

You have been given several examples of other species operating as intelligent designers, each one of which invalidates your claim that this is {special} to humans ... unless you can refute this evidence.How about answering those examples or conceding that non-humans can also act as intelligent designers?Enjoy.

---

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

If the "species" by niche constructablity practice artifical selection they might but I dont see that there are any species other than man that can do artifical selection so I would have answered , "no" to the op. That was too easy for me so I refrained for this long from answering that.

What?Aphids herded and bred by ants is an easy one, but also consider that the flowers and the pollenators breed each other for compatability and exclusivity.The flowers benefit by having a dedicated pollenator that doesn't take the pollen to other plants (where it is useless), the birds, bugs, mammals etcetera benefit by getting a food source not accessible to other species.Every symbiotic relationship is a case of artificially selecting one to benefit the other, whether we lichen it or not.

---

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

I always was under the impression that that would be evidence of selection in nature, or natural selection just as i would say that evolution can plainly EXPLAIN symmetry even if it is not all of the answer. The actions of the organisms depends on whether it is an average or an individual thing and the whole group selection gets raised if one insists that say plant-insect interactions are selective just because alleles are sorted but if that is the case I cant understand why Darwin would have spent so much time with agricultural data to build a case for common ancestry. If instead there is a verifiable Mathusian influence it is important to found the place where this selection occurs is too small for the groups being selected. Artifical selection enables the motion around alleles that natural selection can not "force". So likewise I dont understand why iano thinks that evolution cant explain symmetry by NATURAL SELECTION of alternative alleles while artifical selection of the alleles by directing against forces otherwise present might better exclaim the SAME symmetry. I dont consider the animals you named as symmetric as this period of possible non-phlyetic life.Is that any better?

But it is selection -- natural selection augmented by the specific actions of another species such that it encourages the development of {features\behavior} that would not otherwise need to exist (in the absence of the augmenting species), but which are beneficial (or desired) by the augmenting species.Does it matter that in one case it is humans and in others in is some other species?Does it matter that selecting a species so that it doubles the disposable edible portion in one case involves cow's milk and in another it involves flower nectar ?

---

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

If one thinks like Gould did on humans which had that there was no phenotypic change in the past 10,000 yrs and one still thought that Lamarkianism and Darwinism were absolutely more than pedagogically different & one thought that Waddington contributed something ulitmately to a better Neo-Darwinism then Nooooo, it does not matter what two species you might have spoke of or I did approximately. I however recognize Croizatism if that was the genomics that MUST link with any phenotype. A possible definition of an adaptive unit by anykind of group however is not something that I consider all Lamarkianism to realize, whether in culture or any amphibian etc. That is my position. Parasominum must realize that there is no parsing at this period unless the causal structure under test is already given. Para did not give it nor took it. You can stare. There is nothing wrong with that. Soooo,

quote:

---

The contest was decisively won by natural selection, in my opinion, when in 1932 the classic works of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright had been published. Yet even though this theory may now reign supreme, its realism still supports much opposition, perhaps more than is generally realized. Many recent discussion seem on the surface to conform to the modern Darwinian tradition, but on careful analysis they are found to imply something rather different. I believe that modern opposition, both overt and cryptic, to natural selection, still derives from the same sources that led to the now discredited theories of the nineteenth century. The opposition arises, as Darwin himself observed, not from what reason dictates but from what the imagination can accept. It is difficult for many people to imagine that an individual’s role in evolution is entirely contained in its contribution to vital statistics.

---

Williams Adaptation and Natural Selection 1966and what Waddington said.

quote:

---

This Neo-Darwinist view of the basic nature of life is the dominant one at the present time. It is this view most generally discussed by the people interested in scientific theory, most of whom approach the subject primarily from the side of physics. In my opinion, however, it is inadequate in several ways, and I should like to discuss some of theseThis strict Neo-Darwinism does not involve any necessity to refer to the phenotype.These interactions constitute the process of natural selection.

---

The paradigm for the Evolutionary Process p 37 in Population Biology and Evolution 1968 Syracuse Uni Press.I think Waddington’s thought constricts thought in evolutionary theory rather than expands it. I think we can use our brain on evolution without language. But that is just me. So I find Gould’s reference to Maclean’s notion of the reptile brain a little depauperate at best. There is a huge difference between baraminology and orthogenesis. Gould knew that. I can not accept DS Wilson’s imagination about Calvin while I can agree with Gingerich that Cornell’s AD WHITE did not create phd’s as Kant said the regimen retains. It seems possible to me that discernable threads on biology and physics can become irrepariable entangled on EVC before some religious thread completely interdicts the diction in a science one. That however would be found by judgement not decision as is technically possible. Gould didn’t think that other primates abstract. Mendel vs Darwin occurred in the 80s. I am past that.Shipley had

quote:

---

Nested models and multilevel models page 199

​

Like successful politicians, good stastical models must be able to lie without getting caught. For instance, no series of observations from nature are really normally distributed. The normal distribution is just a useful abstraction — a myth that makes life bearable. In construction statistical models we pretend

---

Cause and Correlation in BiologyIf you get to this bottom of the brook kind of line please wait until I review this book or give indication of the math that binds it up purely else all is only about how evolution is taught not what it is when biology is not evolution. The model comes from the vital statistics. This does not mean that the two model approach to origins is within this statistic. It could be.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-17-2005 11:40 AM