Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Sriram on November 17, 2017, 05:44:51 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a Science Daily article about Intelligence in Evolution.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151218085616.htm
***********
Evolution may be more intelligent than we thought, according to researchers. In a new article, the authors make the case that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural selection produces such apparently intelligent designs.
...a key feature of intelligence is an ability to anticipate behaviours that that will lead to future benefits. Conventionally, evolution, being dependent on random variation, has been considered 'blind' or at least 'myopic' -- unable to exhibit such anticipation. But showing that evolving systems can learn from past experience means that evolution has the potential to anticipate what is needed to adapt to future environments in the same way that learning systems do.
"When we look at the amazing, apparently intelligent designs that evolution produces, it takes some imagination to understand how random variation and selection produced them. Sure, given suitable variation and suitable selection (and we also need suitable inheritance) then we're fine. But can natural selection explain the suitability of its own processes? That self-referential notion is troubling to conventional evolutionary theory -- but easy in learning theory.
"If evolution can learn from experience, and thus improve its own ability to evolve over time, this can demystify the awesomeness of the designs that evolution produces. Natural selection can accumulate knowledge that enables it to evolve smarter. That's exciting because it explains why biological design appears to be so intelligent."
************
Cheers.
Sriram
-
This is Richard Watson's ideas again.
Previously discussed in this thread: Evolvability (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13486.msg663069#msg663069) - which actually referenced a more recent story.
If anybody wants to revisit, the full text of the original article (which both stories are based on) is available here: How Can Evolution Learn? (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288324101_How_Can_Evolution_Learn)
-
Hi everyone,
It is obvious that there is some form of Intelligence at work in Evolution. All the complexity and all those emergent properties cannot arise just through random variation and NS.
The above article and the link given by Stranger are quite interesting.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
It is obvious that there is some form of Intelligence at work in Evolution.
No it isn't.
The only obvious thing is that you want to believe that there is.
All the complexity and all those emergent properties cannot arise just through random variation and NS.
Sounds like a positive assertion on a scientific subject standing in need of evidence.
Got any?
-
One could equally argue that evolution plays games. Think of the extinct forms known as Creodonts ultimately doomed because of their teeth, or perhaps the extinct man ape Oreopithecus, who logically should have survived since they combined both the arboreal agility of the lesser apes, with the bipedalism of the great apes.
(I've got an anorak, and I'm gonna use it).
-
It is obvious that there is some form of Intelligence at work in Evolution.
What was obvious from the previous discussion, is that you don't understand the theory of evolution by natural selection, so your opinions on the subject are of very little value.
-
torridon,
Natural Selection was conceived by Darwin only as a natural process similar to Artificial Selection. He was inspired by AS to think of NS. So...if one is intelligent there is no reason why the other cannot be. Being a believer earlier and later an agnostic.... I don't think Darwin thought of Evolution as some mindless process.
I know many of you cannot think of Evolution being Intelligent. That is because you are schooled in the old school of science. That Evolution can be Intelligent, is being considered seriously by scientists, as I have indicated in the other thread.
Let us discuss there.
Can it be correct to call a process 'intelligent' ? We usually talk about people being intelligent, or more latterly, the emergence of intelligence in complex systems. Furthermore, intelligence requires a context to make sense of the word; a boy that is good at maths is intelligent in the context of maths. What context could evolution be considered intelligent in ? Evolution itself is insentient, it doesn't have cares and worries, it doesn't heed the fact that the weakest runt of the litter is the first to get eaten. I think you'd need to offer some context that would make sense of the claim that evolution is intelligent, where exactly is that intelligence located and how it arises.
-
Can it be correct to call a process 'intelligent' ? We usually talk about people being intelligent, or more latterly, the emergence of intelligence in complex systems. Furthermore, intelligence requires a context to make sense of the word; a boy that is good at maths is intelligent in the context of maths. What context could evolution be considered intelligent in ? Evolution itself is insentient, it doesn't have cares and worries, it doesn't heed the fact that the weakest runt of the litter is the first to get eaten. I think you'd need to offer some context that would make sense of the claim that evolution is intelligent, where exactly is that intelligence located and how it arises.
You are thinking of Intelligence only as a specific characteristic.....such as Human Intelligence. (I think we have discussed this many times before).
Intelligence in a general sense is about responsiveness.....about feedback and self regulation. Any system that has an inbuilt feedback and self regulatory mechanism is Intelligent.
Evolution obviously has a feedback and self regulatory mechanism built into it. Secondly, without some form of external intervention, complexity and emergent properties cannot arise.
Now...what this external agency is and how this intervention happens I have no idea....but I am sure that it happens.
The above articles make a beginning into investigations on such matters. It is a new way of thinking in the scientific community and is indeed promising!
-
without some form of external intervention, complexity and emergent properties cannot arise.
Second bullshit assertion that we'll never see a scrap of evidence for.
Now...what this external agency is and how this intervention happens I have no idea....but I am sure that it happens.
Yep, there we go.
-
Evolution obviously has a feedback and self regulatory mechanism built into it. Secondly, without some form of external intervention, complexity and emergent properties cannot arise.
What makes you think that ?
This has echoes of Mr Burns and his persistent state of incredulity - something hard to understand, therefore leap for external intervention, without pausing to consider that that external intervener is therefore by definition even harder to understand than the thing needing explanation in the first place. Complexity arises naturally out of the aggregation of simplicities; emergent phenomena are ubiquitous throughout nature, we don't need to invoke supernatural causes. This is just like someone coming across a really big number one day and refusing out of incredulity to believe that, yes, it actually made of lots of small numbers.
-
I think the last two posts illustrate the opposing principles of "endless patience with the credulous and hard of thinking" and "no patience with the credulous and hard of thinking"... though not necessarily in that order.
-
Isn't the problem with this discussion (and similar discussions) the result of linguistic confusion? The use of the term "process" when categorising evolution by natural selection?
The word "process" implies a purpose - an objective and therefore a plan. But evolution is purposeless - it is a consequence of random, unplanned, tiny inaccuracies in the process of copying genomes. For the most part, the changes these mutations produce are of no consequence but occasionally one or more may be useful in dealing with a particular environmental condition.
Evolution is not a process but a consequence. The only part of the evolutionary activity which has any connection to being planned is the existence of mutations. However, mutations are blind and most, I speculate, die with their hosts. Another consequence is that if there is an environmental change which is challenging, the vast, overwhelming, number of members of affected organisms die and their genetic potentialities are lost forever.
I recall, some time ago, reading about a piece of woodland in (I think) Devon which had been contaminated by cyanide. Within a very short period the land was bereft of earthworms. The cyanide had poisoned them. However, twenty or so years later it was populated by earthworms which were descended from one which had possessed a mutation making it less susceptible to cyanide. Had the land suffered a different kind of accident, that earthworm would not have survived.
-
Evolution obviously has a feedback and self regulatory mechanism built into it. Secondly, without some form of external intervention, complexity and emergent properties cannot arise.
Now...what this external agency is and how this intervention happens I have no idea....but I am sure that it happens.
Again, the problem is that you are speaking from a position of total ignorance. It is clear from previous conversations, including the evolvability (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13486.msg663069#msg663069) topic, that you haven't the first clue about the theory of evolution by natural selection and seem to have no interest in learning about it.
When you have some evidence and can demonstrate a basic understanding of the theory as it stands, you may have something sensible to say about it...
-
The word "process" implies a purpose - an objective and therefore a plan.
Really? I have to say that this is new to me - I don't think of the term in such a way. Physical processes are just that. They have outcomes of course, but I never think in terms of purpose and intentionality. This form of hyperactive agency detection (wrongly named: it's suspicion rather than detection) leads so many people astray.
-
Isn't the problem with this discussion (and similar discussions) the result of linguistic confusion? The use of the term "process" when categorising evolution by natural selection?
The word "process" implies a purpose - an objective and therefore a plan. But evolution is purposeless - it is a consequence of random, unplanned, tiny inaccuracies in the process of copying genomes. For the most part, the changes these mutations produce are of no consequence but occasionally one or more may be useful in dealing with a particular environmental condition.
Evolution is not a process but a consequence....
I don't see that the word 'process' carries an implication of teleology. A process might be designed by a designer with some goal in mind, but not necessarily. In astrophysics we talk about the process of star formation; in geology we talk about the processes of subduction and convection. No teleology implied. A process is merely a multifaceted phenomenon that persists over time.
-
Can it be correct to call a process 'intelligent' ? We usually talk about people being intelligent, or more latterly, the emergence of intelligence in complex systems. Furthermore, intelligence requires a context to make sense of the word; a boy that is good at maths is intelligent in the context of maths. What context could evolution be considered intelligent in ? Evolution itself is insentient, it doesn't have cares and worries, it doesn't heed the fact that the weakest runt of the litter is the first to get eaten. I think you'd need to offer some context that would make sense of the claim that evolution is intelligent, where exactly is that intelligence located and how it arises.
It maybe that Sriram is relating 'intelligence' to a particular aspect of Indian philosophy which proposes three basic templates within the universe. These are rajas representing activity and expansion, tamas representing inertia and resistance to action and sattwa representing balancing and equilibrium, implying the ability to choose between the other two templates. Intelligence in its original sense meant to 'choose between' and is more noticeable in life forms. In this sense, it doesn't emerge from complex systems but it engages with simple systems and promotes their self sustaining and presumably growth into more complex systems. The variety of homeostatic systems within the body would be seen as intelligence in action at those levels.
-
You are thinking of Intelligence only as a specific characteristic.....such as Human Intelligence. (I think we have discussed this many times before).
Intelligence in a general sense is about responsiveness.....about feedback and self regulation. Any system that has an inbuilt feedback and self regulatory mechanism is Intelligent.
Evolution obviously has a feedback and self regulatory mechanism built into it. Secondly, without some form of external intervention, complexity and emergent properties cannot arise.
Now...what this external agency is and how this intervention happens I have no idea....but I am sure that it happens.
The above articles make a beginning into investigations on such matters. It is a new way of thinking in the scientific community and is indeed promising!
I note this post and what you are saying Sriram? Exactly what is it that makes you draw this particular conclusion?
Regards ippy.
-
What makes you think that ?
This has echoes of Mr Burns and his persistent state of incredulity - something hard to understand, therefore leap for external intervention, without pausing to consider that that external intervener is therefore by definition even harder to understand than the thing needing explanation in the first place. Complexity arises naturally out of the aggregation of simplicities; emergent phenomena are ubiquitous throughout nature, we don't need to invoke supernatural causes. This is just like someone coming across a really big number one day and refusing out of incredulity to believe that, yes, it actually made of lots of small numbers.
Why do you keep saying 'supernatural'? LOL!
Just because something is harder to understand we cannot eliminate it from our possible explanations.
-
Why do you keep saying 'supernatural'? LOL!
Just because something is harder to understand we cannot eliminate it from our possible explanations.
If not supernatural, what did you mean by 'external', then ? If you claim that emergenct properties cannot arise without some external intervention, then what is the nature of that intervention if not supernatural and how does it work ?
-
If not supernatural, what did you mean by 'external', then ? If you claim that emergenct properties cannot arise without some external intervention, then what is the nature of that intervention if not supernatural and how does it work ?
Why should an influence that is external to the organism be supernatural? It could be very natural and a normal part of the evolutionary process and still not be easily measurable or identifiable.
It is about 'Intelligence' and 'learning'.
The article in the OP clearly states that .....
"But can natural selection explain the suitability of its own processes? That self-referential notion is troubling to conventional evolutionary theory -- but easy in learning theory." "Natural selection can accumulate knowledge that enables it to evolve smarter. That's exciting because it explains why biological design appears to be so intelligent."
-
Why do you keep saying 'supernatural'? LOL!
Just because something is harder to understand we cannot eliminate it from our possible explanations.
You don't offer any kind of evidential base for thinking there is any external influence effecting evolutional development, you could be saying that leprechauns deliberately intervene with the evolutionary process and the same demand for some kind of reasoning to explain would also be in order, something you haven't supplied here to date Sriram.
Regards ippy
-
Why should an influence that is external to the organism be supernatural? It could be very natural and a normal part of the evolutionary process and still not be easily measurable or identifiable.
Originally, you claimed something external to evolution rather than "the organism" (evolution itself is 'external' to individual organisms):-
Evolution obviously has a feedback and self regulatory mechanism built into it. Secondly, without some form of external intervention, complexity and emergent properties cannot arise.
There is nothing in the untested hypothesis referenced in the OP that suggests anything external to evolution (inheritance, random variation, and natural selection).
-
Why should an influence that is external to the organism be supernatural? It could be very natural and a normal part of the evolutionary process and still not be easily measurable or identifiable.
It is about 'Intelligence' and 'learning'.
The article in the OP clearly states that .....
"But can natural selection explain the suitability of its own processes? That self-referential notion is troubling to conventional evolutionary theory -- but easy in learning theory." "Natural selection can accumulate knowledge that enables it to evolve smarter. That's exciting because it explains why biological design appears to be so intelligent."
I thought you were claiming something external to the process of evolution is involved. Clearly things external to individual organisms affect it.
If what the OP article is suggesting is that the process of biological evolution itself has evolved (in some general sense) over time, I wouldn't be overly surprised to find that is the case. We observe epigenetic effects at work for instance; were there any epigenetic effects at work in the world of archaebacteria ? I doubt it, but as life has become more complex, so too have the processes by which life persists. It's only the claim that some 'external' intervention is required to make this happen that is problematic.
-
Hi everyone,
It is obvious that there is some form of Intelligence at work in Evolution. All the complexity and all those emergent properties cannot arise just through random variation and NS.
The above article and the link given by Stranger are quite interesting.
Cheers.
Sriram
It's obvious that no intelligence is involved in evolution. If Science Daily is seriously suggesting it is, I suggest you stop reading it.
-
It's obvious that no intelligence is involved in evolution. If Science Daily is seriously suggesting it is, I suggest you stop reading it.
Typical...isn't it?! Sounds very much like.... 'If the site suggests that Jesus did not exist...stop reading it!'
Strong memes!
-
Typical...isn't it?! Sounds very much like.... 'If the site suggests that Jesus did not exist...stop reading it!'
Strong memes!
All of the evidence points to Jeremy's advice to you being correct, thre is no reliable evidence that Jesus did in fact exist.
Regards ippy
-
Typical...isn't it?! Sounds very much like.... 'If the site suggests that Jesus did not exist...stop reading it!'
Strong memes!
No, follow the evidence not your childish wishful thinking.
-
It's obvious that no intelligence is involved in evolution. If Science Daily is seriously suggesting it is, I suggest you stop reading it.
The problem is that these guys (Watson and Szathmáry) wrote an opinion paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288324101_How_Can_Evolution_Learn) in Trends in Ecology and Evolution suggesting some equivalence between certain machine learning algorithms and aspects of evolution (the evolution of genotype–phenotype maps, for example). It used the word 'intelligence' in a very general sense. They certainly were not talking about adding any new inputs to evolution. Everything they proposed was still based on inheritance, random variation, and natural selection.
It then got written up in Science Daily, including very little actual detail.
Then Sriram, whose knowledge of the theory of evolution is actually worse than nothing, latched onto the word 'intelligence' and saw a woo-peddling opportunity.
-
Memes alright! Fighting desperately for survival. The fact that the usual bunch of people jump in immediately to rather vociferously defend their specific beliefs, shows how much these beliefs are struggling under new thinking.
Can't be helped guys...the old gives way to the new! It is inevitable. :)
-
I thought you were claiming something external to the process of evolution is involved. Clearly things external to individual organisms affect it.
If what the OP article is suggesting is that the process of biological evolution itself has evolved (in some general sense) over time, I wouldn't be overly surprised to find that is the case. We observe epigenetic effects at work for instance; were there any epigenetic effects at work in the world of archaebacteria ? I doubt it, but as life has become more complex, so too have the processes by which life persists. It's only the claim that some 'external' intervention is required to make this happen that is problematic.
What do we mean by 'something external'? Is Consciousness internal or external?
You might like to believe that it is an emergent property resulting from the development of the brain. ::) But in fact it could be something external to the brain/body and could be guiding and influencing evolution is certain directions. Ref the 'Neuroscience and Spirituality' thread.
-
Typical...isn't it?! Sounds very much like.... 'If the site suggests that Jesus did not exist...stop reading it!'
Strong memes!
No. The principles of evolution are well understood and do not involve intelligence, whereas the evidence for Jesus' existence is somewhat sketchy and the possibility that he didn't exist is plausible.
-
Memes alright! Fighting desperately for survival. The fact that the usual bunch of people jump in immediately to rather vociferously defend their specific beliefs, shows how much these beliefs are struggling under new thinking.
Can't be helped guys...the old gives way to the new! It is inevitable. :)
Memes alright! The fact that the usual person jumps in immediately to rather vociferously defend his specific beliefs, shows how much these beliefs are struggling under current scientific thinking.
Can't be helped Sriram....the old has a habit of giving way to the new! It might not be inevitable but with the greater understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit, it becomes increasingly hard to evade. :)
-
So for you a 'miracle' is anything with 'direction'? Note it's not clear from the above what you mean by direction.
In a broad sense....yes. Like the elaborate process of evolution leading to intelligent life (humans). It is a miracle that obviously has a superior intelligence driving it.
-
In a broad sense....yes. Like the elaborate process of evolution leading to intelligent life (humans). It is a miracle that obviously has a superior intelligence driving it.
So 'direction ' for you is something that is 'guided by a superior intelligence', and when you think something is 'guided by a superior intelligence', then you call it a 'miracle'?
-
Sriram,
In a broad sense....yes. Like the elaborate process of evolution leading to intelligent life (humans). It is a miracle that obviously has a superior intelligence driving it.
Why on earth do you think that to be the case?
-
Sriram,
Why on earth do you think that to be the case?
Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment. Millions of such adaptations, seemingly unrelated, lead to humans. A miracle indeed....obviously directed by a common consciousness from within.
It is not some random variations and a vague metaphoric Natural Selection surely......
-
Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment.
The problem is that that statement is completely false. Evolution happens because of natural selection and descent with variation. There is no intelligence involved (excepting what humans have done with domesticated organisms).
-
Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment. Millions of such adaptations, seemingly unrelated, lead to humans. A miracle indeed....obviously directed by a common consciousness from within.
It is not some random variations and a vague metaphoric Natural Selection surely......
Claimed, not highlighted.
-
Sriram,
Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment.
You've only claimed it, not "highlighted" it. Moreover you've done so without any sound reasoning or evidence to support your claim.
Millions of such adaptations, seemingly unrelated, lead to humans.
Among many other life forms and not "unrelated" as advantageous adaptations change the model for subsequent ones, but essentially yes.
A miracle indeed....
Not really. Why do you think that?
...obviously directed by a common consciousness from within.
Obviously not. I was at a quiz last might when in the interval there was a game of heads and tails. It starts with everyone standing up and each person putting their hands either on their heads or their backsides. The host then spins a coin and if it comes down heads the people with their hands on their heads remain standing, and the rest sit down and vice versa. The process is repeated until there's just one winner left standing, who then wins the prize.
By way of a thought experiment, imagine that the number of events necessary for humans (or daffodils or orcas) was calculated and that the same number of people played a game of heads and tails. Would the winner of the game then be entitled to think he'd won because the game "was obviously directed by a common consciousness from within", or instead that he won just as a matter of dumb luck?
Can you see now where you've gone wrong?
It is not some random variations and a vague metaphoric Natural Selection surely......
I don't know about "surely", but "based on even a rudimentary understanding of probability and logic it likely is" will do fine.
-
There is enough evidence for change in phenotypes to match the environment than there is for millions of random variations out of which some are 'selected' by chance 'natural selection'..
Deliberate change in phenotype to suit the environment obviously indicates an inner process that is responsive and intelligent.
-
There is enough evidence for change in phenotypes to match the environment than there is for millions of random variations out of which some are 'selected' by chance 'natural selection'..
Deliberate change in phenotype to suit the environment obviously indicates an inner process that is responsive and intelligent.
Oh deary me, surely this confusion of yours has been dealt with before ? Perhaps you have forgotten, there is nothing 'deliberate' about phenotypic plasticity. This plasticity, the capacity for limited change within an organism is something that has evolved through natural selection as it confers an advantage as compared to rival organisms that have more limited capacity to react to environmental change. It still comes down to random mutation and selection at the end of the day.
-
There is enough evidence for change in phenotypes to match the environment than there is for millions of random variations out of which some are 'selected' by chance 'natural selection'..
This doesn't make sense. The first part is an observation that organisms change over time to adapt to the environment. The seconds part is the mechanism by which it happens. The two statements are not in opposition.
Deliberate change in phenotype to suit the environment obviously indicates an inner process that is responsive and intelligent.
But the only examples that you can cite of an intelligence adapting an organism to suit the environment is domestication by humans.
There was no intelligence involved when plants adapted to land living. There's no sign of intelligence in plants and very little in (for example) the first tetrapods to emerge from the seas and certainly not enough for them to engage in selective breeding.
-
I think somebody needs to define 'intelligence' otherwise discussion will be at cross purposes e.g. from Wikipedia :
'It has been argued that plants should also be classified as intelligent based on their ability to sense and model external and internal environments and adjust their morphology, physiology and phenotype accordingly to ensure self-preservation and reproduction.
A counter argument is that intelligence is commonly understood to involve the creation and use of persistent memories as opposed to computation that does not involve learning. If this is accepted as definitive of intelligence, then it includes the artificial intelligence of robots capable of "machine learning", but excludes those purely autonomic sense-reaction responses that can be observed in many plants. Plants are not limited to automated sensory-motor responses, however, they are capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences and of "learning" (registering memories) from their past experiences. They are also capable of communication, accurately computing their circumstances, using sophisticated cost–benefit analysis and taking tightly controlled actions to mitigate and control the diverse environmental stressors.'
-
Oh deary me, surely this confusion of yours has been dealt with before ? Perhaps you have forgotten, there is nothing 'deliberate' about phenotypic plasticity. This plasticity, the capacity for limited change within an organism is something that has evolved through natural selection as it confers an advantage as compared to rival organisms that have more limited capacity to react to environmental change. It still comes down to random mutation and selection at the end of the day.
You are trying to have it both ways.
Phenotypic plasticity can be seen in all species including plants and even microbes. It is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process of adaptation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity#:~:text=Plants%20are%20sessile%2C%20so%20this,a%20leaf%20must%20be%20understood.
*********
Environmental factors, such as light and humidity, have been shown to affect leaf morphology,[17] giving rise to the question of how this shape change is controlled at the molecular level. This means that different leaves could have the same gene but present a different form based on environmental factors. Plants are sessile, so this phenotypic plasticity allows the plant to take in information from its environment and respond without changing its location.
*********
-
You are trying to have it both ways.
Phenotypic plasticity can be seen in all species including plants and even microbes. It is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process of adaptation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity#:~:text=Plants%20are%20sessile%2C%20so%20this,a%20leaf%20must%20be%20understood.
Yes, we already know that this phenomenon is a fundamental part of the evolutionary process of adaptation. This has been explained on here before. Therefore, you won't find any reference in the science to plants doing this 'deliberately', as if they have forethought and planning. Phenotypic plasticity is a product of natural selection, which is an insentient process driven by random mutations in genotype.
-
Its not about forethought and planning. Its about intelligent response. A chameleon changing color to suit the environment is intelligence at work....because the process by which it happens is responsive.
-
Its not about forethought and planning. Its about intelligent response. A chameleon changing color to suit the environment is intelligence at work....because the process by which it happens is responsive.
Is your definition of intelligence 'responsiveness' then? If so, is a rock rolling down a hill showing responsiveness when the path changes direction?
-
If the rock changes its shape to avoid falling down the hill...that's an intelligent response.
-
If the rock changes its shape to avoid falling down the hill...that's an intelligent response.
So intent needs to be added to responsiveness? How do you show intent in the case of the chameleon?
-
Survival is the obvious intent....
-
Sriram,
If the rock changes its shape to avoid falling down the hill...that's an intelligent response.
My car detects whether or not it's dark and turns on the headlights accordingly. Is it therefore "intelligent" according to you definition?
Also by the way do you now understand why the vast number of events necessary for humans to exist no more indicates "obvious intelligence" in the evolutionary process than someone winning a game of heads & tails with the same number of starting participants indicates obvious intelligence in directing the result of the game?
-
The car is programmed to turn on the lights. There is software and hardware built by intelligent humans. ::)
-
Sriram,
The car is programmed to turn on the lights. There is software and hardware built by intelligent humans.
Irrelevant. Is the car itself "intelligent" according to your definition of that term?
-
Survival is the obvious intent....
So you are saying the chameleon deliberately with intent changes colour in order to survive?
-
The car and the chameleon are driven by intelligent intent and intelligent programming. Neither is by chance.
-
The car and the chameleon are driven by intelligent intent and intelligent programming. Neither is by chance.
We may usefully observe that a car is a product of (human) intelligent design. However both cars and chameleons are ultimately products of chance. For example, the asteroid that eliminated the dinosaurs was a 'chance' event on the evolutionary pathway to today's world. Without that big rock falling out of the sky, there would be no humans designing cars or argueing about teleology.
-
The car and the chameleon are driven by intelligent intent and intelligent programming. Neither is by chance.
Is child leukemia 'programmed'?
-
So you are saying the chameleon deliberately with intent changes colour in order to survive?
That's an interesting question that I hadn't ever thought about before. Do chameleons have any conscious control over their colour changing ability or is it entirely reflex?
-
That's an interesting question that I hadn't ever thought about bexcitrd efore. Do chameleons have any conscious control over their colour changing ability or is it entirely reflex?
My understanding is that it's like a fight or flight response. The chameleon isn't choosing the colours, the colours change in response to its mood. If it's threatened, or excited then it changes due to that, not in response to colour.
-
A chameleon can be half green and half brown depending on where it is moving. Certainly not depending on its moods!
-
A chameleon can be half green and half brown depending on where it is moving. Certainly not depending on its moods!
It's a process. Here's an article on it.
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/revealed-why-and-how-chameleon-change-its-colour.html
-
Sriram,
A chameleon can be half green and half brown depending on where it is moving. Certainly not depending on its moods!
Wrong again. To be changing colour "intelligently" in any usual sense of the term the chameleon would have to decide consciously whether or not to change colour. Similarly the car would have to "think" about whether or not to switch on the lights on any given evening.
So far as I can tell your entire assertion about intelligence guiding evolution or some such rests on your incredulity about the vast number of events necessary for your existence without it. This is bad reasoning for the reason I have given to you - sometimes known as the lottery winner's fallacy, it relies on the a priori assumption that the universe intended all along to produce you, so must then have engineered matters so that it happened.
A moment's rational thought though would tell you that there's nothing more special about your existence than there is about the identity of the individual who wins the lottery. Sadly, a moment's rational thought seems however to be beyond you.
-
The car and the chameleon are driven by intelligent intent and intelligent programming.
No.
Neither is by chance.
Yes.
Longer version:
If you want to suggest that there's some sort of deliberate intelligence behind the chameleon's capacity for changing colour you need to explain that, not just assert it. All of your contentions so far have either relied on false analogies wedged into gaps in other, more reliable, explanations, or just outright assertions.
Evolution by the action of natural selection on various means, including spontaneous variation, is not 'chance'. It's a natural mechanism for sorting by fitness from natural variation. That the range of variation is, at least at the macroscopic level, random, does not meant that evolution is random. As an analogy, shuffling a pack of cards produces, at the macroscopic level, a random order to the cards, but then playing a game of cards 'sorts' them to an extent - that the shuffle is random doesn't mean which cards I have in the tricks I've won at the end of the game is random. That remains the case whether the game is reliant on my input or not, it works for 'Clock Patience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_(card_game))', for instance, which is entirely dependent upon the initial sequencing.
O.