Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?

The answer is clearly YES.Creationists who dont see through to this only get caught up in their own biology. It doesnt mean however that current evolutionary theory is able to change species this way nor would I recommend explict procedures to try to do so. I am interested in ecosytem engineering in which by topographic leveling the intrinsic migration capabilities of species might find for human increases of biomass productivity some artifical selectivity in biodiversity. It is a risky notion indeed but there must be some response of humans to their ecological footprint. We humans can not simply evolve just small feet. Some of the species will be coming along for the ride.The focus of the criticism I would place on changing the Earth's topography and not really on the species that might be able to adapat to higher altitudes and deserts where soil might be placed to from which other chemical issues also arise. There are many legal , ethical and scientific things that need be worked on in such a project. I think such is perferable to war, any day!

A contingent probability space.

quote:

---

...in, what prevents IDists from admitting that evolvability is intelligent design?

---

and that because of what Kant said,(Critique of Teleological Judgement @64 OF THE PRECULIAR CHARACTER OF THINGS AS NATURAL PURPOSES In order to se that a thing is possible as a purpose, that is to be forced to seek the causality of its origin, not in the mechanism of nature, but in a cause whose faculty of action is determined through concepts, it is requisite that the form be not possible according to mere natural laws, i.e. laws which can be cognized by us through the understanding alone when applied to objects of sense, but that even the empirical knowledge of ti as regards its cause and effect presupposes concepts of reason. This contingency of its form in all empirical natural laws in reference to reason affords a ground for regarding its causality as possible only through reason. For reason, which must cognize the necessity of every form of a natural product in order to comprehend even the conditions of its genesis, cannot assume such [natural] necessity in that particular given form. The causality of its origin is then referred to the faculty of acting in accordance with purposes (a will), and the object which can only thus be represented as possible is represented as a purpose.)This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-17-2005 12:18 PM

That will depend on a reanalysis of Mayr's 4 point dissection of Agassiz's viewpoint as he classed both Aggassiz's CLASSIFICATION and Lyell's book as a part of NATURAL THEOLOGY but even given this philosophical denial of typology say we still need some working tools that can show the falsity of thie view

quote:

---

For Agassiz and Milne-Edwards, brancing reflected a divergence in ontogeny, so that the adult forms were far more different than the eariler embryonic stages. From all these examples it is evident that static branching diagrams of nonevolutionists are no more indications of evolutionary thinking than branching flow charts in business or branching diagrams in administrative hierarchies.

---

TOWARDS A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY p200Lyell considered extintion to be in equilibrium with speciation etc.
Mayr and Gould insist there is this wrongful confusion of ontogeny and phylogeny. I think Croizat's method provides the means to ending this end only Nelson did not use main massings.the four bullets by Mayr were(in his 76 book)
1)rational plan of the universe
2)typological thinking
3)discontinuism
4)ontogenetic concept of evolutionGould/Eldredges' PE rereads this list and so does my reading of Croizat.

I was suprised to simply READ Weyl say so.page 241 Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science

quote:

---

The development of two organisms may run a different course, owing to 'external circumstances', even if they are of the same genetic constitution (have the same germ plasm or are of the sam genotype, in Weismann's and Johannsen's terminologies). This duality of constitution and environment, 'nature and nurture', is basic for our interpretation of the facts of inheritance. It may be called an a priori conception like the somewhat similar duality of inertia and force in mechanics.

---

The only think thing is that I persoanlly actually think inertia heritably. That took some time since Cornell but it did happen.

How is it possible to infer the creationist's design in a computer and see the same signing on as a blue print for evolvability you ask, given that we could cite you as "personal observation" in the credits??Well look, I can philosophically assert that boolean operations are artificial selected biologically by perversions of one-way 1-Dsymmetriy SYMBOLS that a mathematician could manipulate logically but IS NOT MATH but an organonic whoduthunkthat but that what you observed failed to maintain the same proposition.The short cut of such a design only makes sense in an equibrated other 1-D symmetry series CONNECTING the irreversibility not contingent but that IS NOT a simple boolean operation despite its clear existence in any such current computer as a combination of visuals and moving electrons. I make the design final by associating the thickness of a volatic pile with the energy levels in an atom valenced and wa laaaaa I made a design that evolves IN THE FLESH.So that is what I think life would like if we could actually engineer the design but there is another level of control that must be worked OUT before biotechies could makes such a dingy. That is the effect of DOING the actual scaled object (as opposed to the blue print) and NOT causing a non-natural difference in the 1-D symmetries "living " in the class of objects so educed. This is where instead (because humans cant do this any way yet) where ethics comes in.So the reason you do not see the pc as designating any such ID design is simply that the divisions inherent boolean wise dont do math even if it was possible to rethink heritability boolean wise. Wolfram contends that if/once science gets THIS far my biological positioning of symmetry would mind meld with any probabilism of IT science. I have written papers after paper that were well graded at Cornell contending that Computer Science is NOT as diverse as biology and will NEVER be able to "copy and paste" life.Why do you think that Kant said there will never be a new Newton of a designed blade of grass? It was not because the computer came from a phone etc but because the forces in the phone's carbon would not be irrelevant to the parallel windows environment etc depending on the technology used.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2005 07:29 AM

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 biologistIf 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

I will attempt to "preconstruct" this information, by showing the analogy between Chomsky's difference of surface and deep structure has mathmatical equivalences in biology.This is kind of backwards from the way I think about adaptation, starting from populations as Modulous redacted, but it might be possible to communicate the difference of adaptation in the sense you questioned, either inborn or acquired, by working this way.Start with the DNA sequence as a ChomskySurface-structure ==> find the deep structure (by higher orders of real numbers(A,B,C,D,..L(Quine does not recognize these, not because they have not been used but because he finds no apparent differences between use of Russell's type approach to ostentation, thus utility is the only requirement for existence)) dividing a newer biometry than is present currently) in terms of sets of photons and electrons. Show via Macrothermodynmaics or some other lawful constraint, that the deep structure is the surface itself (the form visible to the biologist)and reverse linguistically with a show, showing, that the DNA sequence itself was the surface grammatical structure similar to structures in other parts of linguistics not applications.Adapation if so retained would be either inborn or acquired depending on the reverse transformation, which is actually the forward thought.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-06-2006 01:52 PM