Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: French men's lockersalon?

Topic: Intelligent Evolution (Read 716 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • socrates1
Intelligent Evolution
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).

  • Fenrir
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #1
Pity reply
It's what plants crave.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #2
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
Better encumbered by "philosophical assumptions" than bronze age superstitions around a goat herders war god, if you ask me.
  • Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 03:47:40 AM by Saunt Taunga

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #3
From the last paragraph in the quote in the OP:
Quote
for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world;....  Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions....
But from the second-last paragraph:
Quote
Wallace ... insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.
A glaring contradiction.

Alternative-reality enthusiasts will stop at nothing (even self-contradiction) in order to complain about science.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #4
From the last paragraph in the quote in the OP:
Quote
for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world;....  Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions....
But from the second-last paragraph:
Quote
Wallace ... insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.
A glaring contradiction.

Alternative-reality enthusiasts will stop at nothing (even self-contradiction) in order to complain about science.
Maybe superstitions don't count as philosophical assumptions?

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #5
From the last paragraph in the quote in the OP:
Quote
for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world;....  Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions....
But from the second-last paragraph:
Quote
Wallace ... insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.
A glaring contradiction.

Alternative-reality enthusiasts will stop at nothing (even self-contradiction) in order to complain about science.
Maybe superstitions don't count as philosophical assumptions?
Not too long before Wallace and Darwin, science was called natural philosophy, to distinguish it from unnatural philosophy, now called religion. Before that there was just one kind of philosophy.

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #6
Quelle surprise. The whole page is built on fallacious argumentation. (also, the FAQ page is worth a giggle.)

P1 is standard ID, an argument from ignorance. "Y" is unknown, therefore this other thing "X".

P2 is some cryptic nonsense that once again invokes the same argument from ignorance.

P3 again, the same boring argument from ignorance is repeated.  (JFC)

P4 well, I think that mess speaks for itself. Also, Wallace was looking for Truth! (by implication Darwin was not,  lol)

That's not even addressing what's factually incorrect, and I mean really, what's the point. It's not really any different than the earlier version of Dembski's "work" where he claimed that one could actually calculate IC and step one was rule out all natural processes first which, like the above, was blatantly fallacious and boy was that shit was tossed under the bus in a hurry just to stop the laughter.

If one is incapable of seeing the blatant problem with assuming you've accounted for all natural processes with 100% certainty or the effective or proportional  limit of all known processes then there's really no point in holding a discussion on the matter. The same is obviously true for discussing "utility," another notoriously ill defined term that is often argued both ways within apologetics. Oh well.

One day, and it's foolish I know, I hope to see someone who pushes "intelligent whatever" to start offering actual direct evidence for the thing they believe exists. You know, rather than "Y" doesn't explain this fully, therefore "X" is responsible, and how do we know "X" exists? because "Y" can't fully explain this.

 Boring useless circular crap is boring.  And useless. And circular.


  • Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 04:22:55 AM by Doobie Keebler
"I'm over 70 and have never seen such , arrogance, incompetence and Ill -intentions as this President and his aids."    The Dotard     (posted 12 days after his 68th birthday)

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #7
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
We already know from scientific studies that Nature is intelligent.

  • Faid
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #8
Inb4 "If you don't believe me, here's a pop sci article that uses the terms 'nature' and 'intelligent'."
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #9
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
We already know from scientific studies that Nature is intelligent.
As we saw in the videos here:
http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,1652.0.html

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #10
Could a mod change the thread title to

"A Child's Introduction to Sophistry. Chapter One: Equivocation"

Thanks!
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #11
Up next, the amazing intelligence behind ebola, onchocerca volvulus, and metastasized cancer.


Morning little buddy !

"I'm over 70 and have never seen such , arrogance, incompetence and Ill -intentions as this President and his aids."    The Dotard     (posted 12 days after his 68th birthday)

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #12
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
We already know from scientific studies that Nature is intelligent.
I'm skeptical.
"Intelligent" is a bit of a wishy-washy term.
What it means tends to depend on context and personal taste.
Do you have links to these "scientific studies"?




Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #13
....
We already know from scientific studies that Nature is intelligent.
As we saw in the videos here:
http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,1652.0.html
Really?
Could you quote the relevant parts?
There is no mention of intelligence in the abstract.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #14
I'm skeptical.
"Intelligent" is a bit of a wishy-washy term.
What it means tends to depend on context and personal taste.
Do you have links to these "scientific studies"?
See, that's why it's the perfect child's introduction to equivocation.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #15
I'm skeptical.
"Intelligent" is a bit of a wishy-washy term.
What it means tends to depend on context and personal taste.
Do you have links to these "scientific studies"?
See, that's why it's the perfect child's introduction to equivocation.
How old would a child typically need to be to grasp a concept as advanced as equivocation I wonder.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #16
Dunno.
What do you suppose "Socrates"'s mental age is?
He's quite adept at equivocation.
Even if he may not know that's what he's doing.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #17
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #18
Dunno.
What do you suppose "Socrates"'s mental age is?
He's quite adept at equivocation.
Even if he may not know that's what he's doing.
Purposeful equivocation would imply intent to deceive.
That would require a mental agility that I'm not sure socrates could muster.
But perhaps I'm too fond of Hanlon's Razor.

I suspect that socrates cannot grasp that words can legitimately have more than one meaning.
On planet socrates words are labels for platonic ideals and so must have one true meaning, even though we could be confused what that is.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #19
Quote
... repeat  same stuff  again ...
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI
Nice video to convince those already convinced.
How about those scientific studies you mentioned?
Those that prove Nature is "intelligent"?

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #20
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI
It takes a certain kind of mental effort to perceive (intuit) even the merest glimmer of the "Overruling intelligence*" that Wallace talks about. Without that kind of mental effort there is no possibility of perceiving it.  

* for example an intelligent, purposeful Nature
  • Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 08:45:25 AM by socrates1

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #21
It takes a certain kind of mental effort to perceive (intuit) even the merest glimmer of the "Overruling intelligence*" that Wallace talks about. Without that kind of mental effort there is no possibility of perceiving it.  
It's a lot like inviting Jesus into your heart!
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • nesb
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #22
I like how a subset of a subset of the parts of nature that are intelligent, have decided they are so grand and vital in the shared characteristics that are intelligence, that nature as a whole must be governed by them. Meanwhile, things tend towards entropy.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #23
I like how a subset of a subset of the parts of nature that are intelligent, have decided they are so grand and vital in the shared characteristics that are intelligence, that nature as a whole must be governed by them. Meanwhile, things tend towards entropy.
You seem to acknowledge that at least "a subset of a subset of the parts of nature" are intelligent. That is a good start.

  • nesb
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #24
Humans and some other animals, sure, although maybe not all humans in every sense the term.