Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 304 (390124)
03-18-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 6:46 PM


Complex Designs vs Good Designs
When we look at "designs" they can, at one level, be devided into two camps:
1: Those designs which are known to be designed by an intelligence (ours). These designs are, when done well, "elegant"; using only what is needed to solve the problem. Designs which, in a family of objects, (e.g., cars) undergo periodic major changes of the structure of components with no connection to the component before (e.g., drum brakes to disk brakes)
2. Those designs that we have seen built by computerized evolutionary processes. These designs are usually almost or entirely incomprehensible. They are "messy" not "elegant". They exhibit connections to previous designs that arose during the process.
I'm not aware of any other overall types of design families.
When we examine the "design" of living things we see a type 2 "design". They are enormously messy and complex. When we can sort out what is going on we see that much of the complexity can be done without. We see connections to earlier "models".
In other words, living things exhibit precisely the kind of very complex designs that we know evolutionary processes produce. They do NOT exhibit the characteristics of a design done by the only intelligent designer we know of.
Edited by NosyNed, : spelling boo boo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 6:46 PM ICdesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-18-2007 8:19 PM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 304 (390137)
03-18-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
03-18-2007 8:19 PM


Design Quality
Frankly, complexity and piss poor design, crap just barely good enough to get by is all that is seen when we look at living things. The human is a great example, overly complex. poorly designed, sloppy build, light of no QC or error correction built into the critter.
Well, very inelegant designs by the standards set for intelligent designers with a particular set of limitations and a particular set of freedoms.
In the case of the intelligent designs we have limitations of cost and we have the freedom to start with a clean sheet of paper when we think that is a good idea.
In the design of a car we are not allowed to build millions of unique examples, sell them to drivers and see how well or badly they work. We have very severe cost constraints (not to mention legal ones).
In the case of the biological "designs" we have an unlimited "budget" we can make an enormous number of "mistakes". For example, it seems that more than half of ALL humans are mistakes and don't make it through the early stages of gestation. This is only a minor problem for biological "designs".
However, biological "designs" do NOT get to start with a clean sheet of paper. Nor can they "know" (in the sense of think through) what will work and will not so they are constrained to making small changes in something that is "known" to work. If an intelligent designer was so constrained s/he would be forced to produce some very messy intermediate designs even if s/he did know where they wanted to get to. Each new "design" must work and have a high degree of compatibility with the previous one.
These freedoms and constraints produce, again, EXACTLY the kind of designs we see in both human designed objects and in living things.
The designs are NOT so much crap as representative of what can be done within the constraints.
Human designs are less flexible than biological ones and do NOT offer the very large range of diversity we see in living things that are "ready" for a change in environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-18-2007 8:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 03-18-2007 9:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 304 (390151)
03-18-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:49 PM


Fingers in ears
I haven't studied the theory of evolution much because I disagree 100%
And that says it all doesn't it. You know just about nothing about it but you disagree anyway. Dr. Lewis Thomas in a speech I was at once was asked a question about some topic rather removed from what he was talking about. His response was: "I don't have the right to an opinion on that. I don't know enough about the topic."
or whatever the heck it does- what is the 'natural' computer that evolution took place on.
The natural computer that evolution takes place on is the earth with the laws of physics it operates under. It is a separate arguement as to how the computer came to be but once it is running evolutionary processes DO produce what appear to be designs. They produce designs that the 'design' of living things mimic. Living things do NOT mimic the designs of intelligent designers.
No matter what you tell me -I will never believe something came from nothing without the help of God.
There are a number around here who believe that God set up the "computer" -- that is, the universe and it's behaviour. Once all that is in place the evolution of living things does NOT come from nothing. That should be obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:49 PM ICdesign has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 45 of 304 (390220)
03-19-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by GDR
03-19-2007 12:01 PM


Answers
The answer to either of our questions is that there is no answer. We don't know.
I don't know about the first one but I do know that we understand the other two. I suspect that someone more knowledgable about anatomy would be able to answer the first one as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 03-19-2007 12:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 03-19-2007 1:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 122 of 304 (390491)
03-20-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by anastasia
03-20-2007 5:31 PM


The "We don't know nuttin'" argument
In other words, what God is or is not capable of is beyond us.
This, in one form or another, seems to be cropping up a lot recently.
It seems to be an admission that God is so beyond us we can't know what he/she/it is like or thinks like or might or might not do.
So how could this God be the source of any understanding or guidance. We don't know what it would preceive as being right/wrong or anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by anastasia, posted 03-20-2007 5:31 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 03-20-2007 6:34 PM NosyNed 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