Gay marriage - It's not often the right looks to France for examples

[Retro Rob]

The complexity of our Brains is what gives us the Intelligence we have. We are also not the only animal that has Intelligence, ours is just the most developed.

You are making the mistake of Assuming only Intelligence can give Intelligence. A common Creationist mistake.

If it's such a "creationist mistake", please explain:

How can we, then, get inteliigence from a process that's absent of it? This is basically the crux of my inquiry, gentlemen.

 

[zsdersw]

How can we, then, get inteliigence from a process that's absent of it? This is basically the crux of my inquiry, gentlemen.

Chemical reactions are the processes that give us molecules and substances that are absent of them, so it is not so foreign and unfathomable of a concept that intelligence can arise from a non-intelligent process.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Fine. Animals, for instance, don't change their environments (i.e bulding heated houses, becoming doctors, creating medicines to combat illness) and they're part of the same process.

They do to the extent that their intelligence allows. Ever read up on what beavers can do? It's pretty amazing. Many animals burrow to escape heat or cold.

Primates have been observed using tools.

That may not have anything to do with evolution. We don't choose mates the same way becaues times have changed. Say for instance, now we have online dating...we didn't have that 100 years ago.

That's my point. We are evolving the human species actively right now in ways that would have been unimagineable a century ago.

Imagine that someone like Mark Zuckerberg was born in a pioneering community in the 1800s. Would he have had a higher or lower chance of attracting a mate? (Please omit the obvious jokes. )

We don't need anything other than food, water, clothing, and shelter to survive. We don't even need to see color, drive cars, fancy houses, good paying jobs, computers, the internet... all these make life worth living or we'd just kill ourselves.

There are people who do live without all of those things. I don't get what your point is here.

How can evolution "select" if it's not concerned with anything? You're assigning it intelligence when it doesn't have it.

It selects by virtue of individuals with more effective solutions having a higher chance of successfully creating offspring and passing on genes than others.

The classic example is the giraffe. They eat leaves off trees. Suppose a thousand years ago, all giraffes had necks 3 feet long. One giraffe is born that has a neck 3.2 feet long. It is better able to get food, and perhaps to mate. It passes on the gene for the 3.2 foot long neck, and now there are more of such giraffes in the population. And so it goes.

How does a herd select for faster running speed? The predator catches the slow ones, and they don't reproduce.

 

[sandorski]

If it's such a "creationist mistake", please explain:

How can we, then, get inteliigence from a process that's absent of it? This is basically the crux of my inquiry, gentlemen.

It is an argument from Ignorance, to start with. Basically just throwing your arms up and declaring "God did it" because the idea that Intelligence could exist without an Intelligence creating it seems unlikely to you. Just a variation on the argument concerning Order needing an Intelligence for it to occur.

You have Assumed that Intelligence is required, that is the mistake. You can't provide one bit of Evidence that this Intelligence even exists, you just insist it does because of your inability to see how our Intelligence(amongst other things) could possibly exist otherwise.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

How can we, then, get inteliigence from a process that's absent of it? This is basically the crux of my inquiry, gentlemen.

Intelligence is not binary. It's not like you "have it" or you "don't have it".

Intelligence is selected for if it improves the chances of reproduction. The mouse that learns to hide under the leaf survives, while the mouse that didn't gets eaten. The next generation of mice has gained a small modicum of intelligence.

Note that intelligence can also be selected *against* in some cases. And in fact, there are some who'd argue that humans are doing that right now.

 

[mikeymikec]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow#Intelligence

 

[Retro Rob]

Intelligence is not binary. It's not like you "have it" or you "don't have it".

Intelligence is selected for if it improves the chances of reproduction. The mouse that learns to hide under the leaf survives, while the mouse that didn't gets eaten. The next generation of mice has gained a small modicum of intelligence.

But "select" means to carefully choose the most suitable. Isn't that an intelligent process, to "select"? Even animals do this when choosing vulnerable prey.

When you say "select", I automatically assume the selection process is performed in an intelligent manner (i,e based on the choice's reproductive abilities), by an intelligent process (evolution).

In short, based on what you've said, evloution has no intelligence, but performs intelligent functions, like selecting based on chances of reproduction?

Am I right about that, Charles?

 

[GreenMeters]

If it's such a "creationist mistake", please explain:

How can we, then, get inteliigence from a process that's absent of it? This is basically the crux of my inquiry, gentlemen.

1. The body structure of unicellular organisms involve chemical reactions instigated by various external stimuli.

2. As multicellular organisms evolve, some cells become specialized at converting external stimuli into chemical reactions. These eventually evolve into nerve cells.

3. Some multicellular organisms develop interconnections between nerve cells, as the improve coordination between body structures improves survival in their niche. This evolves into the nervous system.

4. Over time, new kinds of nerve cells evolve to detect more phenomena. Organizes combine various, specialized chemical sensors (taste, smell), photon sensors and eventually image-forming optics (sight), pressure/vibration sensors (touch, hearing), magnetic sensors (e.g., navigation in migratory birds, electro-sensitivity in sharks, duck billed platypuses, etc.). This increasingly complex nerve cell capabilities requires an increasingly complex nervous system. Control structures--ganglion--develop, themselves comprised of clumps of nerve cells, to better coordinate the nervous system.

5. Ganglion increase in complexity and size. Vast, hyper-connected networks form, meaning one stimulus triggering one nerve cell can result in an exponentially growing number of second-order nerve firings. This allows for evolution of complex causal relationships within the ganglion or--if they've passed some arbitrary rubicon--brains.

6. The complex neural network provides a toolkit for interesting capabilities to evolve. Stimuli--images, scents, tastes, etc.--can be saved (or rather, the nerve excitements they triggered can be saved) and reproduced by other stimuli.

7. Brains continue to evolve and their capabilities increase. Sensory recall begets learning and pattern matching, which begets strategy, learned mimicry, adaptive social behaviors, speech, tool use, etc. Throw enough of these capabilities together and we call it intelligence.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

But "select" means to carefully choose the most suitable. Isn't that an intelligent process, to "select"? Even animals do this when choosing vulnerable prey.

That's because the selection process works the same on predators as it does on prey. The slowest wildebeest doesn't pass its genes on to the next generation, so speed is something that gets genetically selected for. Similarly, the predator who is unable to catch a wildebeest doesn't pass its genes on to the next generation, so hunting prowess is something that gets genetically selected for. But that doesn't automatically imply intelligence behind the process. A wildebeest doesn't run from a predator because it recognizes its own mortality at the hands (teeth?) of a predator species, it does so out of instincts that have been reinforced through millions of years of evolution. Similarly, the predator doesn't automatically know which of the wildebeest will be the easiest to kill, but when one gets separated from the herd, millions of years of genetic evolution and conditioning give the predator the instinct to take a shot at the weaker individual. Cheetahs aren't eyeing a herd thinking, "nah, not going to take them on, they all look pretty fit." They take their chances and, more often than not, come away empty-handed.

Evolution only appears an intelligent process because it is logical that a faster animal is better suited to survival than a slower one. But evolution has no process to select traits that always make an organism "better." Take humans. We're a smart bunch, and that's owing to the size of our brains, the largest of any primate, which allows us to learn and understand things more quickly and more fully. But that comes with the disadvantage of giving birth to young with enormous brains, and enormous heads to hold them. For tens of thousands of years, before the advent of modern medicine, there was a serious risk of the death of the mother with every child born because those large heads don't easily pass through the birth canal. If you were looking at this as an outside observer, you'd think prioritizing the ability to reproduce without a serious risk of death would be fairly high priority for an intelligent process. Ultimately, the ability to out-think predators proved useful and was selected for, at the expense of vaginas everywhere. That's just how evolution works. There isn't some background intelligent process driving it, it's solely based around what survives to pass on its genes.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

For tens of thousands of years, before the advent of modern medicine, there was a serious risk of the death of the mother with every child born because those large heads don't easily pass through the birth canal. If you were looking at this as an outside observer, you'd think prioritizing the ability to reproduce without a serious risk of death would be fairly high priority for an intelligent process. Ultimately, the ability to out-think predators proved useful and was selected for, at the expense of vaginas everywhere. That's just how evolution works. There isn't some background intelligent process driving it, it's solely based around what survives to pass on its genes.

Yep. And if human females think they have it bad, they'd best not read up on the spotted hyena.

 

[GreenMeters]

But "select" means to carefully choose the most suitable. Isn't that an intelligent process, to "select"? Even animals do this when choosing vulnerable prey.

When you say "select", I automatically assume the selection process is performed in an intelligent manner (i,e based on the choice's reproductive abilities), by an intelligent process (evolution).

In short, based on what you've said, evloution has no intelligence, but performs intelligent functions, like selecting based on chances of reproduction?

Am I right about that, Charles?

No. Evolution is not an entity. It does not act with intention, nor does it have foresight about future survivability, nor does it actively select one organism over another. It's just the word we use to describe a few related natural processes concerning how a population's gene pool is shaped as individuals with gene combinations that provide a survival advantage out-survive and therefore out-reproduce less advantaged individuals, and how if one population divides for a sufficient length of time then the changing gene pools of the two sub-populations will eventually reach the point where they can no longer inter-breed, and have therefore speciated.

 

[Retro Rob]

Evolution only appears an intelligent process because it is logical that a faster animal is better suited to survival than a slower one. But evolution has no process to select traits that always make an organism "better." T.

If it's not making intelligent selections, we're just getting lucky then?

Is this planet, animal life, plant life, humans, etc.. a mere "luck of the draw" that seems to happen time and time again when "needed"?

If so, then you're saying an intelligent-type process(s) is merely luck playing it's role at the right time, right circumstances, right amount?

 

[sandorski]

If it's not making intelligent selections, we're just getting lucky then?

Is this planet, animal life, plant life, humans, etc.. a mere "luck of the draw" that seems to happen time and time again when "needed"?

If so, then you're saying an intelligent-type process(s) is merely luck playing it's role at the right time, right circumstances, right amount?

Pretty much.

 

[GreenMeters]

Is this planet, animal life, plant life, humans, etc.. a mere "luck of the draw" that seems to happen time and time again when "needed"?

"Needed"? Needed by what?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If it's not making intelligent selections, we're just getting lucky then?

Is this planet, animal life, plant life, humans, etc.. a mere "luck of the draw" that seems to happen time and time again when "needed"?

If so, then you're saying an intelligent-type process(s) is merely luck playing it's role at the right time, right circumstances, right amount?

You could argue that it's "luck," and I suppose that's a fine way of thinking about it. But how lucky are we really? We can't fly or breathe underwater, we don't have razor-sharp talons, we're pathetically weak in terms of our physical strength relative to every other primate... Super-intelligent? Yeah, not bad... Lucky? I guess. I don't know. Flying would be pretty badass.

But there's no "needed" in regards to evolution. A species either reproduces or it doesn't, and if adaptations to environmental changes enhance an individual organism's reproductive chances, those adaptations may be selected for in future organisms in the reproductive line. That's not a sentient process filling a "need," it's merely a random occurrence that may or may not happen. If evolution was about what an organism "needed," the dodo wouldn't have gone extinct as it learned that humans were treacherous bastards and would have rapidly adapted to distrust them. There is no "need" in nature. It's just life.

 

[Retro Rob]

You could argue that it's "luck," and I suppose that's a fine way of thinking about it. But how lucky are we really? We can't fly or breathe underwater, we don't have razor-sharp talons, we're pathetically weak in terms of our physical strength relative to every other primate... Super-intelligent? Yeah, not bad... Lucky? I guess. I don't know. Flying would be pretty badass.

So, we're lucky, but we're not?

What really are you trying to say? That a random process produces non-random results? This may times? Over billions of years?

How can that be?

 

[sandorski]

So, we're lucky, but we're not?

What really are you trying to say? That a random process produces non-random results?

How can that be?

You would be better off watching one of Richard Dawkins shows explaining Evolution rather than asking these ridiculous questions ad nauseum. You keep trying to avoid seeing what is right in front of you, the concepts are so simple, yet you try to keep feigning confusion.

 

[Retro Rob]

You would be better off watching one of Richard Dawkins shows explaining Evolution rather than asking these ridiculous questions ad nauseum. You keep trying to avoid seeing what is right in front of you, the concepts are so simple, yet you try to keep feigning confusion.

Nah, you can follow your own teachers, I'd rather not.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So, we're lucky, but we're not?

What really are you trying to say? That a random process produces non-random results? This may times? Over billions of years?

How can that be?

When did I say the results were non-random?

 

[sandorski]

Nah, you can follow your own teachers, I'd rather not.

Either you want answers or you don't. Whatever, suit yourself.

 

[Retro Rob]

When did I say the results were non-random?

Ok - you didn't.

However, the results are not random, they're organized and reflect intelligence, do they not?

This is not to interject "intelligent design". I'm just pointing to the results.

 

[sandorski]

Ok - you didn't.

However, the results are not random, they're organized and reflect intelligence, do they not?

This is not to interject "intelligent design". I'm just pointing to the results.

Nope. They are not any more organized or reflect Intelligence than that someone who wins the Lotto means the Winner was more organized or Intelligent than anyone else playing the Lotto.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Ok - you didn't.

However, the results are not random, they're organized and reflect intelligence, do they not?

This is not to interject "intelligent design". I'm just pointing to the results.

I disagree. I don't find that the results of evolution are organized, nor do I find that they reflect intelligence. They reflect reality well enough, but to argue that because something exists now that is the best way a thing could possibly be... well, I just don't think that's true.

For example, dinosaurs. Dinosaurs "ruled the Earth" for 135 million years. They had such diverse morphology that they were able to be the dominant force on land, sea and air for the majority of their time on Earth. Mammals, by comparison, were small, occupying small niche roles, but never producing anything much larger than a common rat. Dinosaurs simply out-competed mammals in every area. It took a random act (in this case an asteroid colliding with the Earth) to kill off the dinosaurs and allow the mammals an opportunity to fill niches the dinosaurs had previously owned. All this works out pretty well for us, since those tiny mammals gave rise to our ancestors and helped make us one of the dominant species on Earth.

But, and here's the important bit, if that asteroid doesn't hit Earth, then the dinosaurs don't die off, or at least not in one fell swoop right then. Mammals don't take over, primates don't evolve, humans never appear. That would be pretty shitty from our perspective since it ends with us not existing. But evolution doesn't care. Evolution is just the word we've chosen to describe a natural process, one that operates independently of thought. There was no desire on the part of evolution for dinosaurs to become the dominant life forms, there was no desire on the part of evolution for an asteroid to hit Earth, there was no desire for the extinction of the dinosaurs and there was no desire for humans to become a dominant force on the Earth. It's all just random chance, and while it feels nice to think about it occurring solely for our benefit since it makes us seem special, the reality is that there is no driving force behind evolutionary processes making sure they arrive at a specific end result. It's all random, you, me, all of us and everything we see. That it works out well for us is sheer dumb luck.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Rob, do you know what antibiotic resistance is?

Do you know what causes it?

 

[Retro Rob]

I disagree. I don't find that the results of evolution are organized, nor do I find that they reflect intelligence. .

Well, I do -- we're different. It seems you're denying organizational processes in our bodies (such as programmed cell death, a regulated process), and that supposedly useless appendix that holds good bacteria incase we lose what we need.

How about our pain censors (nerves) to help us detect when we're hurt, or are hurting our bodies, or our heart, that when working properly, pumps the blood we need to keep us alive. Or our immune system deisgned to fight off sickness -- processes that without them, we'd be dead.

I'd say you're denying reality by not admitting these things are here and reflect the purpose of keeping us alive, perform an organized function in an organized manner, or we wouldn't have them, and we'd be dead.

It doesn't line up with your "ear tickling" evolution theory, so you won't open yoiur mind to organization and intelligence.