Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, nwr (2 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,268 Year: 22,304/19,786 Month: 867/1,834 Week: 367/500 Day: 0/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1986 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 466 of 527 (599673)
01-09-2011 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 5:44 PM


The antenna was generated by a computer program.

Wrong - the design for the antenna was not in the computer programme.

The design of the antenna evolved via random changes supplied by the computer programme coupled with selection that was defined by the environment.

Would the antenna exist if intelligence was taken out of the equation?

We're not interested in the antenna but ion the design of the antenna. From where did the design originate????

(hint, I wrote the answer above)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 5:44 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 6:02 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 467 of 527 (599675)
01-09-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by cavediver
01-09-2011 5:56 PM


We're not interested in the antenna but ion the design of the antenna.

OK then. Would the design of the antenna exist if you took intelligent mind out of the equation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by cavediver, posted 01-09-2011 5:56 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 468 of 527 (599677)
01-09-2011 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by Percy
01-09-2011 5:55 PM


Hi Percy,
Your point was that a simulation of a natural process means that that process is itself intelligent.

No that isn't my point exactly. My point is that all computer related products are an extension of an intelligent source. Simulations are an extension of an intelligent mind. Anything done on a computer would not exist if you took the intelligent mind out of the equation. Do you now understand?

I'll have to come back to the other points you reposted later.

Do you think your heart has an intentional purpose?

I much prefer a point or two at a time.
Thanks,
IC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Percy, posted 01-09-2011 5:55 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Percy, posted 01-09-2011 7:23 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 470 by Coragyps, posted 01-09-2011 7:25 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19111
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 469 of 527 (599682)
01-09-2011 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 6:17 PM


ICdesign writes:

No that isn't my point exactly. My point is that all computer related products are an extension of an intelligent source. Simulations are an extension of an intelligent mind. Anything done on a computer would not exist if you took the intelligent mind out of the equation. Do you now understand?

Sure, I understand what you're saying now, and I'm sure eveyone would agree, but what you're saying now is irrelevant to this discussion. You were trying to claim that simulating a natural process like evolution means that that process was created by an intelligence. This is, of course, untrue.

I much prefer a point or two at a time.

That's fine by me as long as you finish one point before beginning another. You have a number of unfinished points right now. Let's not introduce new topics like whether the heart has "intentional purpose" until you've finished the other ones. My suggestion would be to pick up the Mr. Chance/Mr. Selection discussion that we were having.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 6:17 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 8:11 PM Percy has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 470 of 527 (599683)
01-09-2011 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 6:17 PM


Do you think your heart has an intentional purpose?

I won't speak for Percy and his heart, but mine does NOT have a "intentional purpose." It just grew along with the rest of me. With vertebrates, that's how it works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 6:17 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 471 of 527 (599689)
01-09-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Percy
01-09-2011 7:23 PM


Percy writes:

but what you're saying now is irrelevant to this discussion. You were trying to claim that simulating a natural process like evolution means that that process was created by an intelligence.


No, it isn't irrelevant to this discussion and I did not change the point I have been making the entire time. Think about what you are saying Percy. How can you simulate a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design. That is a double oxymoron.

Let's not introduce new topics like whether the heart has "intentional purpose"

Well you were all ready to talk about it 2 or 3 posts ago when the drinking hole was your example.

My suggestion would be to pick up the Mr. Chance/Mr. Selection discussion that we were having.

I'm not into investing all the time and effort it would take to go down that road. The issues of complex systems with intentional purposes cut more to the heart of the matter than Mr. no brain and Mr. no ability to recognize a beneficial mutation if it were staring him in the face.

Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Percy, posted 01-09-2011 7:23 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-09-2011 10:48 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 474 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2011 12:31 AM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 475 by Percy, posted 01-10-2011 8:00 AM ICdesign has responded
 Message 476 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-10-2011 9:03 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2854 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 472 of 527 (599702)
01-09-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 8:11 PM


ICdesign writes:

How can you simulate a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design.

This is just silly. Are you saying that that the ability to simulate the physics of an avalanche on a computer implies that avalanches must be intelligently designed?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 8:11 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 473 of 527 (599703)
01-09-2011 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 5:44 PM


The antenna was generated by a computer program.

Maybe its irrelevant to you but not to the truth. Would the antenna exist if intelligence was taken out of the equation? Yes or no? That is the relevant question.

Who designed the antenna?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 5:44 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 474 of 527 (599709)
01-10-2011 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 8:11 PM


How can you simulate a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design.

How would you take your intelligence out of the equation, you mean? Well, here's how I would do it - I would base the initial conditions and parameters of the simulation on as few of my decisions as possible, preferably duplicating whatever constraints existed in reality. For instance, if I was simulating the interactions of atoms and needed to specify the atomic weight of hydrogen, I would simply put in the actual weight of hydrogen instead of making any kind of decision on my own about how much virtual hydrogen should weigh.

And then I would further remove my own intelligence from the equation by having the simulation run unattended, autonomously, without asking me for any further decisions or input.

The purpose of these simulations, indeed of any simulation, is to simulate natural processes without any intelligent intervention whatsoever. Can you identify the precise step where the computer programmers failed at this goal? Maybe you could identify the bugs in their code that resulted in their simulation being, against their intentions, a simulation of intelligent intervention in antenna design?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 8:11 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19111
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 475 of 527 (599727)
01-10-2011 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 8:11 PM


ICdesign writes:

How can you simulate a process void of intelligence...

Are you applying the modifier "void of intelligence" to the process or the simulation?

If you were asking how a simulation could be "void of intelligence" then the answer is that it couldn't, because of course the simulation was created by intelligence. Everyone would agree with this. But it's an irrelevant point because we're discussing whether evolution requires intelligence, not simulations.

If you were instead asking how you could simulate a process that is "void of intelligence" then the answer has been provided to you a number of times, and it hasn't changed. We use computers to simulate all kinds of natural processes, from nuclear fission to magnetic storms on the sun, and the fact that we can simulate such natural processes on a computer does not transform them into intelligently driven processes with "intentional purpose." I can write a simulation of a marble rolling down an inclined plain, but neither the marble nor the inclined plane nor gravity has any intelligence or "intentional purpose."

Asking the question again in the style of, "But Percy, you're looking at this all wrong. How could a simulation of a process not require intelligence?" can only draw the same answer, because the answer you've been provided a number of times now is the correct answer. Instead of expressing incredulity over and over and over again you're going to have to read and understand the answer and then express clearly what it is about that answer that you either don't understand or don't agree with.

Let's not introduce new topics like whether the heart has "intentional purpose"

Well you were all ready to talk about it 2 or 3 posts ago when the drinking hole was your example.

Fine, let's return to the watering hole example that you ignored (along with most of the rest of a lengthy message) in your reply in Message 455. Although you have been asked to address how you tell when something has "intentional purpose" a number of times, you've never answered. A watering hole on the Savannah has the purpose of providing water for the animals in the area. How do you know whether that purpose was "intentional" or not? Is it just a case that you can't explain "intentional purpose," but you know it when you see it? If so then you need to develop some scientific criteria for establishing when something has "intentional purpose" or not.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Minor change to improve clarity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 8:11 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by ICdesign, posted 01-10-2011 11:48 AM Percy has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 476 of 527 (599728)
01-10-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 8:11 PM


How can you simulate a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design.

By simulating a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design.

For example, you can simulate the weather, which is void of intelligence, using the intelligent mind of a computer programmer to create the simulation of the weather on a computer which was intelligently designed.

---

Who designed the antenna?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 8:11 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 477 of 527 (599746)
01-10-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Percy
01-10-2011 8:00 AM


Percy writes:

I can write a simulation of a marble rolling down an inclined plain, but neither the marble nor the inclined plane nor gravity has any intelligence or "intentional purpose."


Righting a simulation based on known laws of physics is one thing. A program written on a computer that produces an antenna after a bunch a brilliant scientists imput a bunch of information does nothing to prove that evolution was capable of producing complex systems that perform meaningful purposes.

we're discussing whether evolution requires intelligence, not simulations.

And the answer is yes. We know in the real world that you cannot achieve building a complex system without the aid of intelligence. You cannot simulate a THEORY that took place without intelligence. Its impossible!
Without a computer the antenna has no place to develop, correct?

A watering hole on the Savannah has the purpose of providing water for the animals in the area. How do you know whether that purpose was "intentional" or not?

Just because water gathered in a hole from rain storms doesn't prove anything other than it rained. That is called subjective purpose. It would exist whether animals drank from it or not.
The heart has an objective purpose. It has the obvious sole purpose of pumping blood to the body and that is all it does. That makes it intentional. In order to show it is not intentional you have to show other reasons why it would exist.

Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.

Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Percy, posted 01-10-2011 8:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-10-2011 12:36 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 479 by Percy, posted 01-10-2011 3:34 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 480 by Taq, posted 01-10-2011 3:49 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 478 of 527 (599754)
01-10-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by ICdesign
01-10-2011 11:48 AM


Righting a simulation based on known laws of physics is one thing.

Writing a simulation based on known laws of biology is a very similar thing.

Who designed the antenna?

A program written on a computer that produces an antenna after a bunch a brilliant scientists imput a bunch of information does nothing to prove that evolution was capable of producing complex systems that perform meaningful purposes.

Who designed the antenna?

And the answer is yes. We know in the real world that you cannot achieve building a complex system without the aid of intelligence. You cannot simulate a THEORY that took place without intelligence. Its impossible!
Without a computer the antenna has no place to develop, correct?

Who designed the antenna?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by ICdesign, posted 01-10-2011 11:48 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19111
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 479 of 527 (599786)
01-10-2011 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by ICdesign
01-10-2011 11:48 AM


ICdesign writes:

Righting a simulation based on known laws of physics is one thing. A program written on a computer that produces an antenna after a bunch a brilliant scientists imput a bunch of information does nothing to prove that evolution was capable of producing complex systems that perform meaningful purposes.

You're combining two distinct and different things into one. The program implementation was performed by programmers, and that's one thing. The approach used by the programmers to perform the design activity employed a simulated model of evolution, and that's a different thing. Simulating evolution to design an antennae does not mean that evolution requires intelligence. Writing a simulation program requires intelligence, not the process you're simulating. Just as a weather forecasting program might employ a simulated model of the weather to make predictions, an antennae design program might employ a simulated model of evolution to produce designs. But neither the weather nor evolution requires an intelligence.

Just because water gathered in a hole from rain storms doesn't prove anything other than it rained. That is called subjective purpose. It would exist whether animals drank from it or not.

If stalactites and stalagmites that are created by the dripping of mineralized water were actually designed by God (see your Message 464), then isn't a watering hole also designed by God. And doesn't anything designed by God have "objective intentional purpose?"

The problem you're having is that you didn't arrive at your position through reasoning, and so you can't explain the reasoning for your position because it doesn't have any. You're reduced to claiming that your position is obvious while making unsupported assertions like "It's impossible" because you've never thought it through, it's just something you believe very strongly. You believe what you believe because it feels right to you, not because you've done any analysis of real world evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by ICdesign, posted 01-10-2011 11:48 AM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 12:28 PM Percy has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 480 of 527 (599788)
01-10-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by ICdesign
01-10-2011 11:48 AM


Righting a simulation based on known laws of physics is one thing. A program written on a computer that produces an antenna after a bunch a brilliant scientists imput a bunch of information does nothing to prove that evolution was capable of producing complex systems that perform meaningful purposes.

Those brilliant scientists did not input the design for the antenna. That is the whole point. They simulated the blind and unintelligent process of evolution and what this process produced was the antenna. This is no different than simulating the blind and unintelligent process of gravity to predict the best orbit for a satellite.

We know in the real world that you cannot achieve building a complex system without the aid of intelligence.

We know no such thing. No intelligence is needed to produce the complex weather systems seen on Earth. No intelligence is needed to produce antibiotic resistance in bacteria through random changes in proteins. No intelligence is needed during the 9 month development of a human embryo from a single cell to a fully functioning human baby. We observe complex systems spontaneously forming throughout nature all of the time without any input from an intelligence.

Just because water gathered in a hole from rain storms doesn't prove anything other than it rained. That is called subjective purpose.

So are the purposes you are assigning to biological systems.

The heart has an objective purpose. It has the obvious sole purpose of pumping blood to the body and that is all it does.

That is the heart's function. Purpose and function are separate things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by ICdesign, posted 01-10-2011 11:48 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019