Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does evolution support intelligence driven design?
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 16 of 24 (443353)
12-24-2007 4:56 PM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

  
William Rea
Junior Member (Idle past 2621 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 12-23-2007


Message 17 of 24 (443577)
12-25-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by sinequanon
12-24-2007 8:46 AM


If intelligence is one attribute amongst many others that gives an advantage for survival then why would that be considered inconsistent?
Just like any other attribute we are biologically programmed to consider it when looking for a reproductive partner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sinequanon, posted 12-24-2007 8:46 AM sinequanon has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 24 (443599)
12-25-2007 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by sinequanon
12-24-2007 7:54 AM


Re: Misunderstanding the argument
sinequanon writes:
I deliberately used the phrase "intelligence driven design" rather than Intelligent Design, to avoid direct association.
Is intelligence involved in the process of selecting a sexual partner?
The idea is to consider whether intelligence involves "the mind" and to what extent the mind is considered a physical thing.
Hi Sinequanon. The problem I see with trying to apply this to the TOE is that before any form of intelligence evolved into living organisms there would be no intelligence to factor into the evolution process.
It's easy to argue the ID factor by natural processes after the fact that intelligence is present in some fashion but the hard part is the earlier eons of life's existence without any intelligence whatsoever. Perhaps the mathmatical probabilities of ID evolution life origins would be beyond possibility.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by sinequanon, posted 12-24-2007 7:54 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2007 12:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 21 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 6:19 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 19 of 24 (443609)
12-26-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 11:40 PM


Re: Misunderstanding the argument
Buzsaw
It's easy to argue the ID factor by natural processes after the fact that intelligence is present in some fashion but the hard part is the earlier eons of life's existence without any intelligence whatsoever
My dear Buzsaw. Perhaps you could explain just what level of intelligence was needed eons ago exactly? Last I checked single cell life did not have as a prerequisite the ability to solve integral calculus or play Mozart on a piano as a necessary facet of intelligence.
Perhaps you have some actual idea of what you mean that you could share with my muddled brain so that I may participate in your thought process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 11:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 12-26-2007 12:26 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 22 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 6:34 AM sidelined has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 24 (443610)
12-26-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by sidelined
12-26-2007 12:24 AM


Re: Misunderstanding the argument
i'm not sure intelligence is necessary NOW. or present for that matter.
as kirk used to say, "beam me up scotty, there's no intelligent life down here."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2007 12:24 AM sidelined has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 21 of 24 (443626)
12-26-2007 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 11:40 PM


Re: Misunderstanding the argument
Hi Buzsaw.
The argument would not replace TOE. Question is, does TOE support the argument? Is intelligent selection (someone called it artificial selection) included in TOE? If not, why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 11:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 22 of 24 (443627)
12-26-2007 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by sidelined
12-26-2007 12:24 AM


Intelligence.
This is important.
As far as I know, there is no scientific litmus test for intelligence in a species. All we tend to measure is how close the species is to human. That is not a thorough enough definition of intelligent.
Take, as an example, a male bird buiding a nest and inviting the female to inspect it. Is intelligence involved in the inspection, or is it all instinct? Is intelligence being used in determining where the female invests her genes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2007 12:24 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Granny Magda, posted 12-26-2007 1:27 PM sinequanon has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 23 of 24 (443700)
12-26-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by sinequanon
12-26-2007 6:34 AM


Re: Intelligence.
Hi sinequanon,
It is true that humans are able to make concious decisions about our own breeding (although mostly, people don't pick a partner with the specific intent of passing on a specific trait to their offspring, it isn't very romantic). We also make decisions about the breeding of other species, via artificial selection.
What you need to demonstrate is that a bird engaged in breeding behaviour (like your nest example) is consciously making a decision to produce offspring, and choosing a particular partner based upon a conscious desire to pass on a specific trait, as opposed to acting out of instinct. Since this is pretty much impossible to demonstrate, your theory is left floundering.
Edited by Granny Magda, : Added "choosing particular partner..."

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 6:34 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 2:46 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 24 of 24 (443717)
12-26-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Granny Magda
12-26-2007 1:27 PM


Re: Intelligence.
I have heard of people deliberately choosing tall partners because they are small and they don't want their children to be so small. So it does happen.
With regard the nest example, is the choice instinct? If not, what is it?
I am only asking if intelligence is involved, directly OR indirectly. I am not trying to prove that a bird is consciously trying to pass a on a particular trait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Granny Magda, posted 12-26-2007 1:27 PM Granny Magda 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