Intelligent design on s.b.e?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Tim Tyler - 20 Jun 2008 23:53 GMT

The moderator wrote:

> As you all know, I regard "intelligent design" as crypto-, or not
> so crypto-, creationism. Hence, discussion about it doesn't belong
> in this newsgroup.

Hmm. What about:

Lee Smolin: The Life of the Cosmos;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Cosmos-Lee-Smolin/dp/075380123X/

James Gardner: Biocosm;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biocosm-Scientific-Evolution-Intelligent-Architect/dp/19
30722222/

James Gardner: Intelligent-Universe;
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Emerging-Mind-Cosmos/dp/1564149196/

....?

According to James Gardner, humans may well be the products of
intelligent design. However the ideas in these books seems on topic
here to me. At any rate, they are pretty centrally concerned with
biology and evolution.

Also, intelligent design is part of evolution these days - what with
genetic
engineering, etc. I don't think that discussion of this whole,
important mechanism of evolution ought to be ruled out here on a-
priori grounds.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.

Reply to this Message

Ron O - 21 Jun 2008 18:47 GMT

> The moderator wrote:
> > As you all know, I regard "intelligent design" as crypto-, or not
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
> reply.

None of these books seem to have much to do with any science of
evolutionary biology. I doubt that anyone is going to be stopped from
putting up something from one of the above books, but modified
anthropic principle would be pretty lame in this news group. Genetic
engineering isn't the type of intelligent design that gets discussed
by most proponents of intelligent design.

We do not need to discuss dishonest political ploys in this type of
group. Talk.origins was created to siphon off that type discussion.
It should stay there. Anyone can just go to ISCID to see how lame the
intelligent design discussion has become. They could be desperate
enough to let uninvited people post there again. Discussion of
Gardner's book might be a welcome topic, or not. History has shown
that intelligent design was just a dishonest religious political
movement, and science was never their primary focus. Any pretense
about the science has pretty much died out. Just go to ISCID to see
how active the intelligent design science discussion is. There may
have been some honest science discussion going on, but it obviously
didn't count for very much.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html

Ron Okimoto

Reply to this Message

Tim Tyler - 22 Jun 2008 22:32 GMT

>> James Gardner: Biocosm;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biocosm-Scientific-Evolution-Intelligent-Arch...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> putting up something from one of the above books, but modified
> anthropic principle would be pretty lame in this news group.

Gardner's hypothesis could certainly do with some concrete supporting
evidence.

> Genetic engineering isn't the type of intelligent design that
> gets discussed by most proponents of intelligent design.

Right - but it is one type of intelligent design which is on topic
here.

Intelligence is not really a new player on the scene, either.
Intelligence has been at work in evolution for millions of years.
The choices of intelligent agents guide the path which evolution
takes - via mechanisms which include the Baldwin effect and
sexual selection. Humans are very literally the product of
intelligent agents.

In the future, "evolution" will be practically synonymous with
"intelligent design".

The era of natural selection and random mutations were just the
evolutionary process booting up. Once engineers are produced,
the development of organisms takes on rather a different character.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.

Reply to this Message

Ron O - 23 Jun 2008 23:07 GMT

On Jun 22, 4:32 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Ron O wrote:
> >> James Gardner: Biocosm;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biocosm-Scientific-Evolution-Intelligent-Arch...
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> Right - but it is one type of intelligent design which is on topic
> here.

So there is no ban on putting it in where it might be applicable.

> Intelligence is not really a new player on the scene, either.
> Intelligence has been at work in evolution for millions of years.
> The choices of intelligent agents guide the path which evolution
> takes - via mechanisms which include the Baldwin effect and
> sexual selection. Humans are very literally the product of
> intelligent agents.

This is just the organisms affect on the environment that includes all
life on earth. You can equate mental choices with intelligent design,
but you have to define it that way. Sexual selection is a kind of
intelligent design, but the animal or even human may be unaware of the
reason for the selection. Why do people tend to select others that
look like them for mates? Why is novelty appreciated in some cases?
Is the reason for the choice intelligently thought out? No.

Humans have developed the means to make intelligent selection choices,
but in order to do that they have to have knowledge that the human
race has not had until recently. Without this knowledge it is just
blind chance and selection of the winning cultural aspects.

The fruits of our brains have altered the course of evolution of
humans. Tools have affected our morphology and physiology. We aren't
as strong as our ape relatives. Our jaws and dentition are adapting
to doing less work. Our brains developed to our present state, from
the half sized brains of the first tool users. That is not
intelligent design, when the human populations that were evolving
didn't know what was happening to them.

> In the future, "evolution" will be practically synonymous with
> "intelligent design".

How intelligent it will be is something that we will find out.

It isn't intelligent design when you select for wildlife that can live
in large cities or survive global warming. It is just adaptation to a
new environment.

Humans can direct the evolution of future generations if they want
to. They can manipulate nature. So?

> The era of natural selection and random mutations were just the
> evolutionary process booting up. Once engineers are produced,
> the development of organisms takes on rather a different character.

Speculation about what can be in the future, doesn't seem to be a
major emphasis of this newsgroup. This isn't the type of intelligent
design that is unwelcome here, and I doubt that you wouldn't be able
to post about such things. What is a total loss is the creationist ID
movement. That has become a waste of time even among the true
believers except for what political hay that they can make of it.

Ron Okimoto

> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
> reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Reply to this Message

Linlin Yan - 23 Jun 2008 23:07 GMT

On Jun 23, 5:32 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Ron O wrote:
> >> James Gardner: Biocosm;http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biocosm-Scientific-Evolution-Intelligent-Arch...
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> evolutionary process booting up. Once engineers are produced,
> the development of organisms takes on rather a different character.

I like the statement! Booting up via random mutations and natural
selection. And now it's our engineers' duty to promote the evolution
by some intelligent methods, such as genetic engineering.

> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
> reply.

Reply to this Message

Tim Tyler - 24 Jun 2008 20:36 GMT

>> Intelligence is not really a new player on the scene, either.
>> Intelligence has been at work in evolution for millions of years.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> life on earth. You can equate mental choices with intelligent design,
> but you have to define it that way.

That paragraph was about the role of intelligence in evolution,
*not* the role of intelligent /design/ in evolution.

To refer to selection by intelligent agents as "design" would be
a bit of a stretch - the process of design /normally/ consists
of other actions besides simply choosing things.

> Humans have developed the means to make intelligent selection choices,
> but in order to do that they have to have knowledge that the human
> race has not had until recently. Without this knowledge it is just
> blind chance and selection of the winning cultural aspects.

Selection by intelligent agents has been going on for hundreds
of millions of years.

>> In the future, "evolution" will be practically synonymous with
>> "intelligent design".
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> in large cities or survive global warming. It is just adaptation to a
> new environment.

Right. But the future will be engineered:

http://alife.co.uk/essays/engineered_future/

I.e. the entire ecosystem, from end to end will be the product
of intelligent design.

>> The era of natural selection and random mutations were just the
>> evolutionary process booting up. Once engineers are produced,
>> the development of organisms takes on rather a different character.
>
> Speculation about what can be in the future, doesn't seem to be a
> major emphasis of this newsgroup. [...]

Discussion of engineering is not speculation about the future.
We have had engineers since before Darwin was born.
The different character I speak of is evident now. It is
largely responsible for the current mass extinction. I am
not speculating about future changes, but rather discussing
historical developments.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.

Reply to this Message

Paul Ciszek - 22 Jun 2008 22:32 GMT

>The moderator wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>James Gardner: Intelligent-Universe;
>http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Emerging-Mind-Cosmos/dp/1564149196/

"Intelligent Design" as the term is used in the US right now refers
to a fraud. Those who invented "Intelligent Design" do not believe it,
it is merely a tool for them to use against the teaching of evolution
in public schools. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_document

Signature

Please reply to: | President Bush is promoting Peace and Democracy
pciszek at panix dot com | in the Middle East by selling Weapons to the
Autoreply is disabled | King of Saudi Arabia.

Reply to this Message

Josh Hayes - 23 Jun 2008 23:07 GMT

> Also, intelligent design is part of evolution these days - what with
> genetic
> engineering, etc. I don't think that discussion of this whole,
> important mechanism of evolution ought to be ruled out here on a-
> priori grounds.

I'd hate to think that Tim is being deliberately obtuse on this subject. We
all know that intelligent design differs from Intelligent Design. The point
is, this newsgroup has an explicit ban on discussion related to the
evolution versus creation topic, and nearly every time someone brings up
Intelligent Design, they're crossing that line.

You all KNOW what I mean. Don't pretend you don't. And don't expect me to
inform you before I start shooting.

-JAH

Reply to this Message

Tim Tyler - 24 Jun 2008 20:36 GMT

> Tim Tyler <seemysig@googlemail.com> wrote in

>> Also, intelligent design is part of evolution these days - what with
>> genetic engineering, etc. I don't think that discussion of this whole,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> evolution versus creation topic, and nearly every time someone brings up
> Intelligent Design, they're crossing that line.

Right. So it sounds as though it is "Intelligent Design" that is
banned:
the theory that intelligent design contributed to existing organisms
that
most scientists think actually evolved.

That would seem to rule out discussion of The James Gardner references
I mentioned - and perhaps certain panspermia possibilities, involving
the design of DNA by intelligent aliens - but *not* discussion of the
integration of intelligent design into evolutionary theory as a
modern mechanism of evolutionary change.

A pity, IMHO - but it's /mainly/ the latter possibility which I'm
interested in.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.

Reply to this Message

DK - 24 Jun 2008 20:36 GMT

>> Also, intelligent design is part of evolution these days - what with
>> genetic
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I'd hate to think that Tim is being deliberately obtuse on this subject.

I think so too. A bit of trolling, really.

DK

Reply to this Message

John Edser - 23 Jun 2008 23:07 GMT

Tim Tyler <seemysig@googlemail.com> wrote:-

Intelligence is not really a new player on the scene, either.
Intelligence has been at work in evolution for millions of years.
The choices of intelligent agents guide the path which evolution
takes - via mechanisms which include the Baldwin effect and
sexual selection. Humans are very literally the product of
intelligent agents.

In the future, "evolution" will be practically synonymous with
"intelligent design".

The era of natural selection and random mutations were just the
evolutionary process booting up. Once engineers are produced,
the development of organisms takes on rather a different character.

JE:-
Natural selection, i.e. just the default selection of monocentric units
of selection _with the highest fitness maximand_ must always occur.
Selection by default is not the same process as selection by intent.
While selection by intent using genetic engineering will progress,
the results always end up being naturally selected. My proposed
test to falsification of Darwinian monocentric natural selection in which
the Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF as I have defined it here) is held
artificially equal over as many generations as possible allowing just
the random processes of mutation and genetic drift to operate is
predicted to end up with the genetic dissipation of the system.
Natural selection enters when just one member of the experimental
population cannot anymore, raise the required equalized number of
offspring (minimally one) to fertile adulthood. The point is, Darwinian
natural selection cannot be avoided, just delayed.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Evolution / June 2008

Intelligent design on s.b.e?