Why evolution is true

[Sebastian Toe]

I am just saying that there are enough examples of evolution happening through intelligent intervention.

Could you give a couple of examples please?

[BeRational]

Maybe!

Environmental changes are chance and so NS is chance.

No.

The mutations are random, the selection is not.

[Enki]

I think that you will have to appreciate that Sriram is coming from a different background as indicated by his comment 'Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation.'  As far as I can recall, a number of Hindu schools of thought see intelligence as a property fairly close to that word's original meaning (interlegere) .. to choose between.  The creative process is flexible rather than associated with a divine design template.  The creative process is seen more as an interplay of three 'forces' .... rajas, which might be seen as energy, tamas which might be seen as mass or a formative force, and sattwa (intelligence) an intervening force which attempts to create harmony by using rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas.  Rajas has a tendency towards dissipation and tamas towards inertia.  Sattwa preserves the harmony between the two.

No problem. But if you are going to introduce evolution into such thinking, then the least you can do is acknowledge and understand the scientific basis for the theory. I have no problem with such thinking as you describe, if that is what one wishes to believe, but as far as I can see there is no evidence for any intelligent intervening force, except perhaps for the intelligence that evolution has itself created, as Torri(post 19) has ably decribed.

[Spud]

Eh ?  Most people would consider homo sapiens more complex than Australopithecus afarensis.  Most people would consider multicellular organisms more complex than single cell ones. Most people would consider vertebrates with internal organs more complex than the simple multicellular organisms that came before.  Most people would consider eukaryotes more complex than the archaea that preceded them.  How is this not a progression from simple to complex over time ?

A grasshopper can leap the equivalent of something like 300 feet for humans. So I'm not sure that greater size or apparent complexity does imply actual complexity. Whenever we observe an increase in capability, it is always at the expense of another capability. You have also claimed that A .Aferensis was a human ancestor in order to support your point about increasing complexity. All the evidence I have seen suggests it wasn't.

[Sebastian Toe]

All the evidence I have seen suggests it wasn't.

Have you seen any evidence that suggests some connection between modern humans and any suggested ancestors?

[torridon]

A grasshopper can leap the equivalent of something like 300 feet for humans. So I'm not sure that greater size or apparent complexity does imply actual complexity. Whenever we observe an increase in capability, it is always at the expense of another capability. You have also claimed that A .Aferensis was a human ancestor in order to support your point about increasing complexity. All the evidence I have seen suggests it wasn't.

Put these brains into ascending complexity order : pygmy shrew, lemur, chimpanzee, insurance salesman

[ekim]

No problem. But if you are going to introduce evolution into such thinking, then the least you can do is acknowledge and understand the scientific basis for the theory. I have no problem with such thinking as you describe, if that is what one wishes to believe, but as far as I can see there is no evidence for any intelligent intervening force, except perhaps for the intelligence that evolution has itself created, as Torri(post 19) has ably decribed.

Perhaps somebody could layout how evolution created intelligence rather than the other way round, so as to put that element of the discussion to bed.

[jeremyp]

Evolution can be driven by intelligence. That is all.

Can you think of any examples where the intelligence was not human intelligence?

[Sriram]

We can see that human intelligence has created computers....which have evolved over the decades....and become intelligent too (robots, AI).

In other words...Intelligence creates things that evolve and become intelligent.

Look familiar doesn't it? 

Biological organisms also evolve and become intelligent.  Stands to reason that there is some form of Intelligence responsible for it. The pattern repeats.

Problem arises only if you try to fit in mythological versions of Intelligence into the picture.

[torridon]

Perhaps somebody could layout how evolution created intelligence rather than the other way round, so as to put that element of the discussion to bed.

Intelligence is a high order outcome of increasing complexity over time.  First there was undifferentiated plasma, then after a few hundred million years plasma transformed into atomic matter, which went on to form into molecular matter, of which carbon in particular grew into increasingly complex long chain compounds which led inevitably to self replication which led to cellular organisms which led to multicellular organisms which led to vertebrate organisms with through gut, internal organs and bilateral symmetry which led to mammals and primates and great apes and eventually intelligent designers.  The best evidence we have is that it takes 14 billion years for intelligence to arise; once arisen it can, recursively create further intelligence of course, but it cannot spontaneously arise out of nowhere or arise quickly. The apparent lack of intelligent life, or indeed any life at all anywhere else in the universe surely is testament to the rarity and complexity of intelligence.  It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations.  Evolution is an inevitable, fundamental process.  Intelligent design is one of its extremely rarefied products

[Sriram]

Intelligence is a high order outcome of increasing complexity over time.  First there was undifferentiated plasma, then after a few hundred million years plasma transformed into atomic matter, which went on to form into molecular matter, of which carbon in particular grew into increasingly complex long chain compounds which led inevitably to self replication which led to cellular organisms which led to multicellular organisms which led to vertebrate organisms with through gut, internal organs and bilateral symmetry which led to mammals and primates and great apes and eventually intelligent designers.  The best evidence we have is that it takes 14 billion years for intelligence to arise; once arisen it can, recursively create further intelligence of course, but it cannot spontaneously arise out of nowhere or arise quickly. The apparent lack of intelligent life, or indeed any life at all anywhere else in the universe surely is testament to the rarity and complexity of intelligence.  It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations.  Evolution is an inevitable, fundamental process.  Intelligent design is one of its extremely rarefied products

Your quote..."It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations."

What??  Is that what you have understood from what I have said in so many posts?

[torridon]

Your quote..."It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations."

What??  Is that what you have understood from what I have said in so many posts?

Your prev post - Biological organisms also evolve and become intelligent.  Stands to reason that there is some form of Intelligence responsible for it.

Being responsible for implies a precedence of intelligence over evolution.  That's circular, or back to front, rather like saying "the son begat his father"

[ekim]

Intelligence is a high order outcome of increasing complexity over time.  First there was undifferentiated plasma, then after a few hundred million years plasma transformed into atomic matter, which went on to form into molecular matter, of which carbon in particular grew into increasingly complex long chain compounds which led inevitably to self replication which led to cellular organisms which led to multicellular organisms which led to vertebrate organisms with through gut, internal organs and bilateral symmetry which led to mammals and primates and great apes and eventually intelligent designers.  The best evidence we have is that it takes 14 billion years for intelligence to arise; once arisen it can, recursively create further intelligence of course, but it cannot spontaneously arise out of nowhere or arise quickly. The apparent lack of intelligent life, or indeed any life at all anywhere else in the universe surely is testament to the rarity and complexity of intelligence.  It's a huge conceptual mistake to consider intelligent design and evolution as like for like rival explanations.  Evolution is an inevitable, fundamental process.  Intelligent design is one of its extremely rarefied products

OK, that seems a good starting point.  Perhaps we could ignore 'design'and 'designer' as it implies working out in advance and just use the word 'intelligence'.  It would now be helpful if you defined intelligence in the context of your post and also 'undifferentiated plasma' and what caused it to 'transform'.

[torridon]

OK, that seems a good starting point.  Perhaps we could ignore 'design'and 'designer' as it implies working out in advance and just use the word 'intelligence'.  It would now be helpful if you defined intelligence in the context of your post and also 'undifferentiated plasma' and what caused it to 'transform'.

Atomic matter formed after a period of cosmic cooling and expansion; after 380,000 years temperature and density conditions became right such that previously free floating electrons became trapped into orbits around proton/neutron nuclei and at a stroke we had the beginnings of the periodic table, a more complex catalogue of matter than that which preceded it.  Now complexity builds up over periods of cosmic time until we have a full periodic table leading to biology eventually.  All events in the universe can be viewed as interactions between matter and forces taking place at varying levels of complexity. An encounter between hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms resulting in water is at a low end of a scale of complexity; an intelligent choice over which fixed interest instrument to invest in, is also ultimately a matter interaction taking place at a level of complex systems biology.  Intelligence implies an already existing hugely complex context for any concept of intelligence to have any meaning.

[jeremyp]

We can see that human intelligence has created computers....which have evolved over the decades....and become intelligent too (robots, AI).

Don't buy the hype. There are no truly intelligent robots or computers yet.

Biological organisms also evolve and become intelligent.  Stands to reason that there is some form of Intelligence responsible for it.

No it doesn't.

So your answer to my question is no.

[ekim]

Atomic matter formed after a period of cosmic cooling and expansion; after 380,000 years temperature and density conditions became right such that previously free floating electrons became trapped into orbits around proton/neutron nuclei and at a stroke we had the beginnings of the periodic table, a more complex catalogue of matter than that which preceded it.  Now complexity builds up over periods of cosmic time until we have a full periodic table leading to biology eventually.  All events in the universe can be viewed as interactions between matter and forces taking place at varying levels of complexity. An encounter between hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms resulting in water is at a low end of a scale of complexity; an intelligent choice over which fixed interest instrument to invest in, is also ultimately a matter interaction taking place at a level of complex systems biology.  Intelligence implies an already existing hugely complex context for any concept of intelligence to have any meaning.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you have written but it seems like you are saying that there is no such thing as 'intelligence', just action reaction processes which get more and more complex over time.  Presumably the same could be said of 'life' and 'consciousness' and we are all just dead matter rolling about like pebbles on the sea shore driven by a tide of becoming.

[SteveH]

We can see that human intelligence has created computers....which have evolved over the decades....and become intelligent too (robots, AI).

In other words...Intelligence creates things that evolve and become intelligent.

Look familiar doesn't it? 

Biological organisms also evolve and become intelligent.  Stands to reason that there is some form of Intelligence responsible for it. The pattern repeats.

Problem arises only if you try to fit in mythological versions of Intelligence into the picture.

Human artefacts do not evolve in the same sense. There is an intelligence - ours - driving their evolution. Biological evolution is not directed by any intelligence, as is evidenced by the many examples of bad design, if you assume a designer, already mentioned.

[Sriram]

Human artefacts do not evolve in the same sense. There is an intelligence - ours - driving their evolution. Biological evolution is not directed by any intelligence, as is evidenced by the many examples of bad design, if you assume a designer, already mentioned.

The OP assumes that if evolution is proved to be correct, then it automatically rejects Intelligent Design.   I am arguing that this need not be true.

The evidence for this being human products that evolve and become more complex over time but are nevertheless created by Intelligent Design. There are many flaws in human products.

This is true of also hybrid animals and plants that we humans artificially create. 

Evolution or flaws need not be incompatible with Intelligent design.

That is all my argument is about.

[torridon]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you have written but it seems like you are saying that there is no such thing as 'intelligence', just action reaction processes which get more and more complex over time.  Presumably the same could be said of 'life' and 'consciousness' and we are all just dead matter rolling about like pebbles on the sea shore driven by a tide of becoming.

Yes, something like that.  That last phrase was rather beautiful.  If we step back to glimpse a bigger picture, then whether matter is dead or not starts to lose its meaning; there is just matter and energy, space and time, and if we dive deeper down into quantum theory then even matter, space and time evaporate - these things become emergent outcomes of events in a quantum field where there is no space or distance or time or matter; all there are is events, interactions.  So I think we could model all phenomena ultimately in terms of interactions of varying degrees of complexity at varying levels of emergence.  How does intelligence fit into this ?  Well it's hard to define intelligence in the first place, something along the lines of the skill level with which complex webs of relationships can be modelled, but whatever, it is a phenomenon that sits at the high end of the spectrum of complexity and emergence and it makes no sense to talk of intelligence as something fundamental, contextless, some sort of a-priori first cause.  Intelligence is something that emerges in a richly complex context as a facet of life in its opposition to the entropy gradient.

[ekim]

Yes, something like that.  That last phrase was rather beautiful.  If we step back to glimpse a bigger picture, then whether matter is dead or not starts to lose its meaning; there is just matter and energy, space and time, and if we dive deeper down into quantum theory then even matter, space and time evaporate - these things become emergent outcomes of events in a quantum field where there is no space or distance or time or matter; all there are is events, interactions.  So I think we could model all phenomena ultimately in terms of interactions of varying degrees of complexity at varying levels of emergence.  How does intelligence fit into this ?  Well it's hard to define intelligence in the first place, something along the lines of the skill level with which complex webs of relationships can be modelled, but whatever, it is a phenomenon that sits at the high end of the spectrum of complexity and emergence and it makes no sense to talk of intelligence as something fundamental, contextless, some sort of a-priori first cause.  Intelligence is something that emerges in a richly complex context as a facet of life in its opposition to the entropy gradient.

OK, well I'll try to contrast that scientific theory with the 2500 year old metaphysical speculation from India as I recall it (and so could be a suspect interpretation).  Instead of a quantum field, there is what's called Prakriti a kind of primal infinite potential with the three innate qualities I mentioned previously.  It is the interplay of those simple qualities which give rise to the complexity of all the changing forms and forces in the universe.  Sattwa or Intelligence is one of those simple qualities which modulates the other two and is more evident or present in life forms e.g. homeostasis and metabolism would be examples of its presence at an organic level and rationalisation at a mental level.  A pebble on the sea shore would have little if any intelligence and its tamasic form would be at the mercy of the rajasic forces of wind and waves.  I suppose you could say that Sattwic intelligence is an emergent property but of the primal Prakriti not from the increasing complexity of life forms.

[Sriram]

OK, well I'll try to contrast that scientific theory with the 2500 year old metaphysical speculation from India as I recall it (and so could be a suspect interpretation).  Instead of a quantum field, there is what's called Prakriti a kind of primal infinite potential with the three innate qualities I mentioned previously.  It is the interplay of those simple qualities which give rise to the complexity of all the changing forms and forces in the universe.  Sattwa or Intelligence is one of those simple qualities which modulates the other two and is more evident or present in life forms e.g. homeostasis and metabolism would be examples of its presence at an organic level and rationalisation at a mental level.  A pebble on the sea shore would have little if any intelligence and its tamasic form would be at the mercy of the rajasic forces of wind and waves.  I suppose you could say that Sattwic intelligence is an emergent property but of the primal Prakriti not from the increasing complexity of life forms.

Actually ekim...all this Indian philosophy is not likely to have any impact in this forum.  I have tried it over nearly 20 years. Explaining the nature of the Intelligence that drives Nature is a very complex thing. Nature (Prakriti) itself is intelligent and human intelligence is only one derivative of it.

I am trying to explain a very simple phenomenon....that of artificial selection and technological evolution....in which evolution is driven by intelligence...and this is not being understood.  They still maintain that evolution and Intelligence are incompatible....and that Intelligence cannot precede evolution.   

Darwin himself came up with Natural Selection only after he observed Artificial Selection. 

[ekim]

As Rudyard Kipling said: 'OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet' but he did make exceedingly good cakes. 

[torridon]

OK, well I'll try to contrast that scientific theory with the 2500 year old metaphysical speculation from India as I recall it (and so could be a suspect interpretation).  Instead of a quantum field, there is what's called Prakriti a kind of primal infinite potential with the three innate qualities I mentioned previously.  It is the interplay of those simple qualities which give rise to the complexity of all the changing forms and forces in the universe.  Sattwa or Intelligence is one of those simple qualities which modulates the other two and is more evident or present in life forms e.g. homeostasis and metabolism would be examples of its presence at an organic level and rationalisation at a mental level.  A pebble on the sea shore would have little if any intelligence and its tamasic form would be at the mercy of the rajasic forces of wind and waves.  I suppose you could say that Sattwic intelligence is an emergent property but of the primal Prakriti not from the increasing complexity of life forms.

The ancient Greeks too had ideas on the fundamental nature of reality, some of which sound surprisingly modern.  The Pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus developed an idea resembling atomic theory over two thousand years before Enlightenment Europe started to get back to where the Greeks had been.  Arguably one of the most brilliant minds ever produced by homo sapiens, the entire works of Democritus, and there were a great many, were all destroyed by Theodosius in his elimination of all writings that varied from the Christian script, plunging Europe into a Dark Ages that would last centuries.  Such was the scale of the intellectual catastrophe for European thought, courtesy of the early church.

[Sriram]

As Rudyard Kipling said: 'OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet' but he did make exceedingly good cakes. 

Lol!   Yes....but that was ok in the 19th century. The British lived and ruled India for so long but did no pick up anything.

In today's globalized environment, the East and West cannot ignore each other. Just as India has to pick up Science and Technology from the West...so also the West has to pick up Philosophy and mysticism from India.

The supposed gap between Science and Spirituality/mysticism is artificial and is perpetuated by the West because of scientific and general snobbery. I expect that in coming generations, mainly due to Indian  efforts and perhaps German and American, the gap might close significantly.

Cheers.

Sriram 

[Aruntraveller]

I think you'll find the West had a handle on Philosophy long before the British Raj. Think Pythagoras.

As to mysticism...... a whole other basket of fish, which I have no time for filleting at the moment. But in short, mysticism does nothing but pander to the already existing wishes and thoughts of the person involved. The embodiment of confirmation bias.