Where does intelligence come from?

[Will]

Telemad, I feel like you have something against Creationists haha.. You oversimplify their views, but I've met people like the ones you describe.

 

Biochemist, I believe that we are constructed of all sorts of chemicals (naturally) and I debate to some extent whether life is predetermined by the laws of the universe. In some ways I feel like everything effects everything else indirectly, and that none of this can be controlled.

 

But at the same time, I feel like perhaps all of the chemicals that make us up, also make up our ability to think and control. So while there are laws that apply to everything that exists in our universe, perhaps we have some control because all of the atoms inside of us have been assembled in a way that permits us to have choice and power.

[Biochemist]

Telemad, I feel like you have something against Creationists...

Ya think? It appears that the thought of a live Creationist makes Telemad foam at the mouth. Apparently he was one before, and he "recovered". It looks like he is now trying to lead the recovery movement by "outing" Creationists everywhere. Even when folks aren't.

 

I feel like perhaps all of the chemicals that make us up, also make up our ability to think and control.

It is probably undisputed that the neurotransmitters in our head give us the ability to think and feel. Causality for that system is the dispute. Experientially, it sure seems like we have some free will. Some folks in the naturalism camp don't think so, and that we are the result of a long sequence of essentially accidental causes and effects.

[Biochemist]

If you follow this discussion (which I posted in reply to someone else here at Hypography) you should be able to see that natural selection is not random as well as how nature what does the selecting.

This really is a pretty articulate treatise (posted above in post 15). But nothing in it lends any support to the notion that selection is not random.

[TeleMad]

This really is a pretty articulate treatise (posted above in post 15). But nothing in it lends any support to the notion that selection is not random.

 

Sure it does. Read it again.

[Biochemist]

Sure it does. Read it again.

TM- Relying on pre-existing complexity does not obviate randomness. We could certainly hypothesize that a previous random event created a complex environment that decreased apparent randomness in subsequent events. But even if that were true (and I don't beleive that has ever been demonstrated in any field) that merely pushes the randomness argument further back to the genesis of the original organizing system. Nothing in your discussion obviated the random source of the complex organizing environment that eventually demonstrated selection. Hence, the environment itself was created from random events. This connection is why so many Darwinians believe in Naturalism.

[Will]

My own thoughts for why it's not random is because natural selection implies that within nature there certain things will survive and certain things will not. It is not random though. Dependent on what the trait is that survives or dies there was a reason that it did survive or die.

 

Here's a scenario. Suppose that there are two animals. A tall animal and a short animal. Now let's suppose that there are fruits on tall trees. Let's say that the tall animal can reach the fruits without doing anything special, but the shorter animal needs to climb. Now suppose that over a generation for one reason or another the shorter animal lost its ability to climb. It would die right (assuming that it needed that fruit, and couldn't get it). I believe that is natural selection. It's not random, but its tough luck for the short animal that can't climb anymore.

 

If that scenario doesn't work for natural selection that i'm sure i can think of plenty of other ones. Perhaps I could even use a real example, instead of some stupid thing about two animals trying to get fruit in a tree...

 

But natural selection is not random. The whole idea is that certain traits or choices made by living things will determine whether they survive or not, and that is natural selection.

[Biochemist]

My own thoughts for why it's not random is because natural selection implies that within nature there certain things will survive and certain things will not........ The whole idea is that certain traits or choices made by living things will determine whether they survive or not, and that is natural selection.

I do understand this line of reasoning. Events do indeed occur now that are "selected" in that certain long term outcomes are favored over others.

 

But the entire existing complex system arose from an environment that was at one time random. So even though there are events within the context of the current environment that are preferred over other (that is, in a non random fashion) the entire system that behaves this way grew from random order. Hence, the creation of the original system that seems to act in an organized way is random.

 

If you you view the system over the long term, either we are the endpoint of random events, or we are the endpoint of design. There is not any other alternative.

[TeleMad]

It's simple Biochemist: natural selection is not random. Argue against that self-evident fact all you want, you'll just manage to do even more harm to your reputation as a "biochemist".

 

Mutations are random with respect to fitness. There's your randomness. As we see with eyes of cave-dwelling fish, or the vestigial pelvic girdle of whales, and the wings of flightless birds, once functional constraint is removed for a structure natural selection no longer constrains the randomness: it takes over and the structure 'deteoriates'. But when the structure is under functional constraint - because it IS beneficial to survival and reproductive success - then natural selection does pull in the reins on randomness. The underlying randomness is still there, but the environment superimposes a direction by tending to eliminate the deleterious and retaining the beneficial.

[Biochemist]

It's simple Biochemist: natural selection is not random. Argue against that self-evident fact all you want, you'll just manage to do even more harm to your reputation as a "biochemist".

One last attempt. In the current environment, events do occur that are "selected" for. That is, with the current state as a baseline, some outcomes are preferred over others. Those effects are NOT random.

 

However, the current complex environment arose from a random precursor, presumably somewhere in the primordial environment, and would have had to arisen as a random event. Ergo, over the long view, even though we are living in an environment that appears (and probably is) organized, that complex organization appeared randomly from first cause. If you are accepting as a postulate that the biological world was organized de novo, you are taking a position that is in the ID camp, and one that even most IDers don't take.

[TeleMad]

One last attempt.

 

At what? CHANGING YOUR POSITION ONCE YOU ARE SHOWN TO BE WRONG, AND TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE YOU NEVER WERE?

 

Here 'Biochemist', let's review the facts that you are now so strongly trying to distort.

 

Biochemist: There are fundamentally two schools of thought:

 

1) We evolved by virtue of random events. ... Subsequent random events yielded even more complex life.

 

TeleMad: No, no, and no. Evolution is not just a series of random events, even though Creationists almost always misrepresent it as such. Evolution also includes NATURAL SELECTION, which is not random.

 

Biochemist: Do explain how natural selection is not random. If it is directed, please identify what or whom was supplying the direction.

 

Then I explained why natural selection is not random, and Biochemist replied…

 

Biochemist: This really is a pretty articulate treatise (posted above in post 15). But nothing in it lends any support to the notion that selection is not random.

 

Your original argument included EVOLUTION - unlike your new argument which focuses only on the origin of life.

 

Even across several replies you were still talking about EVOLUTION and NATURAL SELECTION - not the origin of life.

 

You argued against my position that NATURAL SELECTION is not random. Now you slyly pretend that you've always considered natural selection to be non-random and have tried to slyly move the goal posts to the origin of life.

 

Congratulations, in these few exchanges you've managed to show us once again how ignorant you are of evolutionary theory as well as how disingenuous you can be. Keep up the good work!

[Biochemist]

Your original argument included EVOLUTION - unlike your new argument which focuses only on the origin of life.

I do understand that you are a poor reader. I don't really see that as my problem. My initial assertion (in context) was always that we got here either by random events or by design. It is nice that you have finally noticed the original assertion.

 

It is not really clear to me why you seem to enjoy hostile responses to trivial elements of posts here. I am certainly not the only one that you attack for trivial, out of context reasons. So, why the hostiliy? Any ideas on that?

[TeleMad]

I do understand that you are a poor reader. I don't really see that as my problem.

 

I haven't said you are a poor reader, I've just pointed out the ignorance and dishonesty in your statements. You've once again shown me to be correct.

 

Biochemist: My initial assertion (in context) was always that we got here either by random events or by design.

 

False. You original statements that I challenged were:

 

Biochemist: There are fundamentally two schools of thought:

 

1) We evolved by virtue of random events. ... Subsequent random events yielded even more complex life.

 

Your continued ignorance does not allow you to see how wrong that statement is.

 

Do us all a favor and learn at least something about evolution.

 

Biochemist: It is not really clear to me why you seem to enjoy hostile responses to trivial elements of posts here. I am certainly not the only one that you attack for trivial, out of context reasons. So, why the hostiliy? Any ideas on that?

 

I point out when people's reponses are filled with ignorance and dishonesty. Yours fit both.

[TeleMad]

Do us all a favor and learn at least something about evolution.

 

I did you another favor. I did a Google for something I thought you could handle - "evolution for beginners" - and found you a site.

 

http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html

[SFarrisTheGr8]

I've set here reading this thread and I can't believe what I'm seeing. Telemad.....Obviously you can't see the forest for the trees as they say. Unless you can say that looking into the primordial soup as life first formed that it would evolve the way it has then it is by mere chance that we made it this far. You argument that natural selection isn't random is.....well I don't know what to say about it. I know that "Nature" isn't an intelligience. It had no design, no blueprint, nothing! One asteroid and we wouldn't even be here and that is still a threat. I'll grant you that "Natural Selection" appears to have a plan but is simply the way things roll. Biochemist I'm on your side..Telemad..is well..obviously looking for an argument and doesn't care if he is right or wrong. At least I hope so or else he is an idiot. If he believes in God and what not he should just say so. I could respect that. After all that is what he is saying more or less

[TeleMad]

SFarrisTheGr8: Telemad..is well..obviously looking for an argument and doesn't care if he is right or wrong. At least I hope so or else he is an idiot.

 

Nope, I am not looking for an argument, I am pointing out errors in Biochemist's statements.

 

So I guess you are calling me an idiot.

 

 

SFarrisTheGr8: If [TeleMad] believes in God and what not he should just say so. I could respect that. After all that is what he is saying more or less

 

What the? Where the hell did you come up with that? You are SO off target.

 

Off to a piss-poor start there SFarrisTheGr8.

 

 

PS: I guess I'm supposed to say "Welcome to the site", but since you basically called me an idiot and completely distorted my position, I think you don't deserve it.

[SFarrisTheGr8]

Whatever

[TeleMad]

Whatever

 

What?

 

You start right off at this site by calling me an idiot and completely mangling my position. I point out your errors and instead of apologizing or even acknowledging them, you just say "Whatever"?

 

So you also don't care about facts or being honest.