Super Genius Thread- Evolution Connection

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His not arguing against evolution at all. His saying that those who argue for intelligent design are being wierd if they argue that stuff like Ipods could emerge without great minds.

[/ QUOTE ]I will let him speak to what he is arguing. However, I strongly disagree with this statement if you are referring to the human mind only.

Lets say a visitor from the Omega Nebula region comes to this planet never having heard of animals or ipods or of anything of our life of earth. Do you think this visitor would be more impressed with the design and complexity of the ipod than with the design and complexity of a Bald Eagle?

Nature, without the help of the human brilliant mind, has created things of such incredible complexity. An ipod wouldnt even rank as child's play in comparision.

Now, you might have an argument with the form that the complexity takes. However, I don't think such an argument is very interesting or germaine.

[/ QUOTE ]
the ipod is obviously more likely to be designed by humans than the bald eagle is to be designed at all.

chez

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to share what I think is an ironic twist regarding my stance about the top scientists. My contention is that these scintists are so much better at thinking than most people, that to disagree with them about almost anything they have deeply thought about is a recipe for being wrong. And that observers on the sideline should bet on the scientists especially if they are not themselves expert in the subject.



[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this the type of reasoning used to justify only allowing wealthy male landowners to vote?

[Lestat]

I posted a thread a while back on what the world would be like if everyone had the exact same IQ of a Lestat. I argued that we surely wouldn't currently have the combustible engine yet, let alone supersonic jets, microchip computers,, nuclear energy, etc.. I wondered if some these things ever would've been developed even by the year 20006 or if at all.

Ironically, many opposed this argument in favor that the sheer number of Lestats who would be working on these ideas would eventually pull them off. I still think that's wrong.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of ways whereby natural selection can create new information.


[/ QUOTE ]

I probably shouldn't have mentioned this because I'm not really up on the subject. I was mostly interested in others critique of the idea, pro and con. A cursory scan of the net shows that the issue isn't simple, nor is it yet decided, as far as I can tell. At any rate, I won't mention it again, just hope for some rational discussion.

[ QUOTE ]

Its also obviously disingenous to claim it 'answers nothing.'


[/ QUOTE ]

It answers nothing about the ultimate issues, which I made clear in my statement:

But it answers nothing. Where did the universal, absolute, unchangeable law of natural selection come from?

Perhaps you're satistifed with ns as an answer, I'm not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I'm not satisfied with natural selection as an answer to where natural selection came from. I'm also not satisfied with Natural selection as an explanation for why logs float in water. Thats not what its supposed to be answering. The reason I responded as I did is because it is apparently an accepted weakness of the ToE that it can't explain the origins of the Universe (at least in some circles) and it was this common MISconception that you were preying on.

[Utah]

You are arguing form and you are using an a posteriori probability. The chance is only because humans exist and not because the ipod is infinity complex and thus requires human brilliance.

That is simply form and it is uninteresting. The Pokerstars sweatshirt I am wearing now is more likely to be designed by humans that the bald eagle at all. Who cares? It is simply form after an event.

Now, if you could point to an object created by humans that is more complex than anything ever created by nature then there is something interesting to discuss [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You are arguing form and you are using an a posteriori probability. The chance is only because humans exist and not because the ipod is infinity complex and thus requires human brilliance.

That is simply form and it is uninteresting. The Pokerstars sweatshirt I am wearing now is more likely to be designed by humans that the bald eagle at all. Who cares? It is simply form after an event.

Now, if you could point to an object created by humans that is more complex than anything ever created by nature then there is something interesting to discuss [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just consider how they persist over time. One is dependent on the wiles of others and the other has reproductive organs.

How comes as ipods break more appear? where do the next generation come from and how comes they are more complex? In the absense of a reproductive mechanism they must rely on something else.

This is obvious to any reasonable intelligence from any planet.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The reason I responded as I did is because it is apparently an accepted weakness of the ToE that it can't explain the origins of the Universe


[/ QUOTE ]

My post was in response to Borodog's post. His statement at least implied approval of the idea that Darwin destroyed the concept of intelligent design, and that this destruction was beautiful and elegant. And one line in the post, i.e. "It is the ONLY answer to the 'turtles all the way down' problem' " is much more than an implication - it basically asserts that Darwinism answers ultimate questions of origin and meaning, and that it does so in a beautiful and elegant manner. Horse feathers.

[andyfox]

But is the choice just between super-geniuses and mediocrities? No doubt the best scientists stand on the shoulders of other giants, but could we not have had the next best kneeling on the shoulders of others not quite as tall?

I agree with your general point that we would not have anywhere near the technological advances we have now without the most brilliant among us discovering ways to do things. But I'm not so sure we wouldn't have muddled our way to ipods by 2106 (or 2406) instead of 2006 without the super-geniuses. Wouldn't a less intellgient person than Euclid or Newton have discovered what they discovered years after they did?

The choice is not between Euclid and Andy Fox. David Sklansky fits in there too, no? Or is the difference between Euclid and Sklansky really too great?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The reason I responded as I did is because it is apparently an accepted weakness of the ToE that it can't explain the origins of the Universe


[/ QUOTE ]

My post was in response to Borodog's post. His statement at least implied approval of the idea that Darwin destroyed the concept of intelligent design, and that this destruction was beautiful and elegant. And one line in the post, i.e. "It is the ONLY answer to the 'turtles all the way down' problem' " is much more than an implication - it basically asserts that Darwinism answers ultimate questions of origin and meaning, and that it does so in a beautiful and elegant manner. Horse feathers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess I meant that it answers the turtles question with regards to complexity. Intelligent design is completely useless in that any intelligent designer would need a more intelligent designer to have designed him. And thats unarguable since its intelligent design that asserts that anything complex must have been designed by something more complex. Its natural selection alone that solves this problem and prevents an infinite spiraling out of control.

[Lestat]

I see what you're saying Andy and agree that we'd eventaully have everything we do today.

Given enough time, I will muddle my way through the most difficult Sudoku puzzle, even while more intelligent people do a much quicker job of it. But there is such a thing called intellectual capacity and there are number/logic puzzles that are simply beyond my means to ever solve. I'm not sure one muddles his way to coming up with the Theory of Relativity, for example even if he is a very intelligent physicist. *Almost* as smart as Einstein isn't good enough.

It clearly took the top thinkers of our time to discover things like Newtonian Physics, the Theory of Relativity, DNA, etc. Yes, these things would've eventually been discovered at some later date (perhaps it would've taken Einstein to come up with Newtonian Physics, etc.), but there's no getting around the fact that it took the top 1-2% of the brightest minds that ever lived to do it. Without them, it doesn't get done. Period.