Jump to content


Photo

Intelligent Selection


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
9 replies to this topic

#1 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:23 PM

A question for atheists and evolutionists to consider...

Is natural selection smarter than you are?

Even our most intelligent engineers and scientists cannot yet design and build robots that can replicate the highly advanced balance and mobility that humans have (for example).

One might argue that natural selection cannot be compared to intelligence, and that's true... We aren't mindless! We have the clear advantage of being able to "intelligently select"what software and components we apply to the invention of a machine, whether biological or robotic. Furthermore, we have the advantage of choosing from "raw materials" that are intelligently designed, vs. raw materials that are purely the result of genetic mistakes(random mutation). And yet despite these enormous advantages, we cannot create machines that even come close to rivaling the sophistication of the human body.

One might also argue that (supposed) millions or billions of years "enabled" natural selection to assemble such incredibly sophisticated biological machines. However, our engineers and scientists don't have the limitationof having to wait for organisms to cycle through countless generations and populations, in order to select the right "building plans and parts". As intelligent human beings with modern technology, we have all building plans and parts and capabilities available to us now.

Mindless selection has zero advantage, while intelligent selection has every advantage...

So how is it that natural selection supposedly builds the superior machine (according to evolution theory)?

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:11 AM

A question for atheists and evolutionists to consider...

Is natural selection smarter than you are?

Even our most intelligent engineers and scientists cannot yet design and build robots that can replicate the highly advanced balance and mobility that humans have (for example).

One might argue that natural selection cannot be compared to intelligence, and that's true... We aren't mindless! We have the clear advantage of being able to "intelligently select"what software and components we apply to the invention of a machine, whether biological or robotic. Furthermore, we have the advantage of choosing from "raw materials" that are intelligently designed, vs. raw materials that are purely the result of genetic mistakes(random mutation). And yet despite these enormous advantages, we cannot create machines that even come close to rivaling the sophistication of the human body.

One might also argue that (supposed) millions or billions of years "enabled" natural selection to assemble such incredibly sophisticated biological machines. However, our engineers and scientists don't have the limitationof having to wait for organisms to cycle through countless generations and populations, in order to select the right "building plans and parts". As intelligent human beings with modern technology, we have all building plans and parts and capabilities available to us now.

Mindless selection has zero advantage, while intelligent selection has every advantage...

So how is it that natural selection supposedly builds the superior machine (according to evolution theory)?


Well the software is already written from the start. How it got there is the "mystery". Once the software is in place, they believe that mutations happened in the genome which would cause some positive benefit (the empirical examples they give of this are questionable at best), or at least stick around long enough for other mutations to join it and make it a positive trait. Now natural selection is simply a practical "whoever survives", so I'm afraid balance and mobility would just be a requirement, if you can't move and can't balance, then you can't survive, or at least can't stand upright. This supposedly took millions of years to happen also.

So I think the weakness of your argument is that although natural selection has no intelligence, it is said to get rid of impractical designs. It "selects" them out over "millions of years" of trial and error, making the present designs more and more practical. Intelligent selection does have an advantage, for example if each engineer could only make one robot prototype in their lifetime, and pass down what they learned to the next generation of engineer, then we would see a fully functioning bipedal robot in far shorter than millions of years.

#3 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:22 AM

Oh I agree that the software was already in place... I'm just sort of taking things a bit from their perspective, and making the argument from there. Posted Image

//So I think the weakness of your argument is that although natural selection has no intelligence, it is said to get rid of impractical designs//

...Except that getting rid of impractical designs is something we can do as well, but more immediately, and efficiently (because intelligence can always weed out inefffective designs better than mindless "mechanisms"). And furthermore, we have millions less designs to weed out to begin with, since we can start with vastly superior designs right up front.

#4 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:50 AM

Oh I agree that the software was already in place... I'm just sort of taking things a bit from their perspective, and making the argument from there. Posted Image

//So I think the weakness of your argument is that although natural selection has no intelligence, it is said to get rid of impractical designs//

...Except that getting rid of impractical designs is something we can do as well, but more immediately, and efficiently (because intelligence can always weed out inefffective designs better than mindless "mechanisms"). And furthermore, we have millions less designs to weed out to begin with, since we can start with vastly superior designs right up front.


Then I guess I don't get what your challenge to them is.

#5 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:42 PM

...The challenge is that if we cannot design and build machines that rival that of the human body with intelligent selection (which affords us every advantage), why would one assume that mindless (natural) selection could do better?
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#6 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:31 PM

...The challenge is that if we cannot design and build machines that rival that of the human body with intelligent selection (which affords us every advantage), why would one assume that mindless (natural) selection could do better?


It's a point so strong for our side that many evolutionists who are confronted with it are many times left with their mouths hanging open and without an answer. Why? Well, how in the world could they ever demonstrate it since nature does nothing like it outside of already pre-existing, living organisms?
  • goldliger likes this

#7 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:41 PM

As Ive understood the term "natural selection", it can only "select" from what is already availible, it does not creat anything new. Not sure how they use it for one of the mecanisims for huge changes.
  • goldliger likes this

#8 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 October 2012 - 05:13 AM

As Ive understood the term "natural selection", it can only "select" from what is already availible, it does not creat anything new. Not sure how they use it for one of the mecanisims for huge changes.


Another very good point.

I'm telling you brethren, this very issue scares the more honest evolutionists. Nonetheless, the best they can do is to assume that nature does it despite the fact that (1) it has never been observed and (2) no one can even force nature to generate life via natural processes. Of course, if one 'forces' nature what does that prove?
  • goldliger likes this

#9 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 21 October 2012 - 03:50 PM

My biology teacher mentioned how inefficient aerobic respiration is, converting only 40% of the potential energy that goes into the reaction into usable ATP. The rest of the energy is given off as body heat.

In listening to a lecture on the subject from a professor at Berkley, he said "you might think that 40% is a very inefficient number - but our gasoline engines convert far less of the potential energy of gasoline into usable energy."

And if you consider that the "wasted" energy is what gives us our body heat, then the "inefficiency" of aerobic respiration is what allows the heat dependent processes of higher organisms like us possible.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:37 AM

My biology teacher mentioned how inefficient aerobic respiration is, converting only 40% of the potential energy that goes into the reaction into usable ATP. The rest of the energy is given off as body heat.

In listening to a lecture on the subject from a professor at Berkley, he said "you might think that 40% is a very inefficient number - but our gasoline engines convert far less of the potential energy of gasoline into usable energy."

And if you consider that the "wasted" energy is what gives us our body heat, then the "inefficiency" of aerobic respiration is what allows the heat dependent processes of higher organisms like us possible.


Systems relying on systems ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users