Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have complex human-made things been designed?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 69 of 85 (518137)
08-04-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Smooth Operator
08-04-2009 12:18 AM


Clarifications
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 12:18 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 3:20 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 71 of 85 (518208)
08-04-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Smooth Operator
08-04-2009 3:20 PM


Re: Clarifications
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 3:20 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 5:03 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 85 (518243)
08-04-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Smooth Operator
08-04-2009 5:03 PM


Re: Clarifications
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 5:03 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 11:07 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 75 of 85 (518581)
08-06-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Smooth Operator
08-06-2009 11:07 AM


Re: Clarifications
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 11:07 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-08-2009 4:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 77 of 85 (519094)
08-11-2009 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Smooth Operator
08-08-2009 4:50 PM


Re: Clarifications
Information in general is knowledge about something.
So for information to increase there has to be an increase in knowledge too?
In the case of naturally occurring phenomenon devoid of human intervention whose knowledge is increasing?
Straggler writes:
And why do you think it (whatever it is that you define as "information") cannot increase?
It can if an intelligence increases it.
Nope you have lost me again. When taken in tandem with your previous answer this seems circular and/or contradictory.
Can information increase without increasing knowledge?
Can you give me an example of a natural phenomenon where information has increased?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-08-2009 4:50 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-19-2009 5:55 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 79 of 85 (520326)
08-20-2009 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Smooth Operator
08-19-2009 5:55 PM


Re: Clarifications
Straggler writes:
In the case of naturally occurring phenomenon devoid of human intervention whose knowledge is increasing?
Nobodies. Therefore natural processes do not create new information.
Then how were humans "created"/formed? Surely we required an increase in information (by your definition of information at least)?
Given that you have defined an increase in information as an increase in knowledge whose knowledge was increased by the creation/formation of humanity?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-19-2009 5:55 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-21-2009 8:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 82 of 85 (520566)
08-22-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Smooth Operator
08-21-2009 8:12 PM


Re: Clarifications
Then how were humans "created"/formed? Surely we required an increase in information (by your definition of information at least)?
It would be the same kind of process you see when people create new technology. It would be an intelligent process.
OK. Or when we intelligent humans (speak for yourself) create other things right? Like when you said that you wrote a poem?
Given that you have defined an increase in information as an increase in knowledge whose knowledge was increased by the creation/formation of humanity?
The said intelligence that would have created life on Earth would be th eone that increased the information content.
So you agree that information has increased. But you have defined information as an increase in knowledge. Smooth Operator whose knowledge was increased by the formation of life on Earth?
I am working with your definitions. Your theories. Whose knowledge was increased by the creation of life? Be explicit.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-21-2009 8:12 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-23-2009 11:31 AM Straggler 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