Can Natural Selection Produce Intelligent Design?

If man's intelligence is so super compared to all other animals then how do you explain the dolphin silver ring?http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.htmlor is it just a difference in degree and not in the structure of intelligence?

---

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

this thread seems to be headed in the direction already taken by
EvC Forum: Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species?
and before that by the subthread on "bones of contention"
http://EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions.focusing on what intelligence is rather than focussing on ID.can we assume intelligent design is involved because intelligence is evident in many species?do we have to?I would say people are free to make that assumption, but it is not necessary.The next question is what that intelligent design process consists of, and whether anything beyond normal evolutionary mechanisms are required.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*14*2005 04:33 PM

---

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

No, I hadn't seen it that way. The take I had was that evolution of "Hs" intelligence was of singular significance and not possible without ID help.But I am happy to move to this interpretation.I had just noticed that we seem to have three threads that are essentially discussing the same thing: the evolution of intelligence (and what we mean by intelligence), and that consolodation might make it more instructive.{{fixed typo}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*14*2005 07:21 PM

---

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

So if he is designed he has free will to do whatever he wants but if he is not designed he doesn't?How does his not being designed negate "His choices are self-directed by whim or by reason" in this case? What prevents it?Seems to me you have it backwards. If he is designed he is {restrained\restricted\constrained} by the box (world) built around him and cannot escape it. He is a monkey in a guilded cage that just thinks he has free will.Enjoy.{{edited. hit submit not preview}}ps -- ID contradicts christianity you know.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*14*2005 10:14 PMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08*14*2005 10:20 PM

---

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

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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

So you ignore the dolphin silver ring and the snowball making macaques and all the other evidence of creativity in other species. Why do you consider humans to be an "end product"? Because you want to feel special?All you are doing here is admitting that you don't accept evidence contrary to your preconceptions, that your argument is based entirely on personal incredulity, and that it is "substantiated" only by your avid denial of any facts.You are welcome to your personal delusions, they won't hinder the process of evolution or alter the facts of nature. Denial does not make the evidence go away. Yes, you can chose to be ignorant, but I don't see how that is "creative" or particularly "free". Unfortuntely for you that is not necessarily "against the grain" as there is plenty of evidence of that in the human population in general. How do you know? Speak for yourself. Actually there are examples of people here with honest open minds that have changed their opinions on a number of topics.But, No one with a closed mind has done that.Enjoy.by[/i] our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}< !--UE-->

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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

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?