"Double Felix" <nick@SKIPTHESECAPSbackpack.com> wrote in message
news:nick-42A09F.13395513112004@news.west.cox.net...

In article <mluld.2666$pt2.1790@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:

(Based on Dennett's description, and from memory, since I haven't seen

the

cartoons in question) Because their sole 'aim' in life was to be helpful

to

human beings - they were asexually reproducing blobs which would

helpfully

transform themselves into whatever a human needed. Darwinian theory

would

not allow such a thing to evolve unless their willing service to

humanity

was counterbalanced, either by humans aiding their reproduction by eg
protecting them from other predators (cf domestic cows, sheep etc), or

by

humans actively destroying any errant schmoos. Otherwise, any schmoo

which

evolved the ability *not* to be so nice to people would be immediately

more

successful than its siblings and would quickly take over.

(Interestingly, while writing the above paragraph I've become much less
convinced that the existence of a schmoo is either impossible or
anti-Darwinian, but it certainly would strongly suggest the presence of
artificial selection, so being 'evidence of design' in the original

context)

The point I got from Dennett is that natural selection drives species
toward forms that aid their survival and reproduction; if it drove them
in any other direction, they would become extinct. The essence of the
argument is that extinction happens when some change in the environment
overwhelms adaptation; as long as a species has time to adapt to changes
in the environment, it will survive.

Schmoos, on the other hand, would have to evolve *toward extinction,*
which is self-contradictory if natural selection is the driving force of
their evolution (i.e. if Darwin's theory is true), because survival of
the fittest doesn't allow non-survival to be a greater state of fitness.
Does that seem like a clearer way to view it?

As I said, I'm writing from memory as I haven't read DDI for a while (and
can't seem to get it to hand), but while I think the argument is fine, I'm
still not convinced that a schmoo couldn't exist, just that it would require
very unusual circumstances. In fact, the circumstances would be so weird
you'd almost have to think of the schmoo as a part of the *human* gene pool
(using Dawkins' extended phenotype concept) rather than a separate species,
because their reproductive success would be so completely tied in with ours.

It seems to me that schmoos (at least as far as I recall the concept!)
aren't so far removed from the hyperdomesticated species we farm today - for
example, grains. If left in the wild, these would die out rapidly - they're
very energy-rich so they'd quickly fall victim to animals; they'd have
immense trouble reproducing themselves and they need so much nutrition from
the soil they'd find it very hard to grow. So these plants have definitely
'evolved towards extinction'. However, as a result of their partnership with
humans they're genetically among the most successful plant species on the
planet. Of course, this wasn't through natural selection, it was artificial
selection; nevertheless, in terms of an extended phenotype I think we could
at a suitably abstract level think of them as species 'naturally
co-evolving' with humanity.

In fact, I can think of other species which have similar traits - symbiotic
species that have co-evolved without any conscious 'design' work going on,
because of their mutual reproductive benefit, which could not reproduce
alone - consider those Mauritius nut trees whose reproduction depended on
dodos (no idea if that hypothesis has been confirmed yet, but it's a good
story).
[snip]
Danny

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncpcpce.14f.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 Michael S. Goodrich <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message news:<T0eld.551$ij3.507@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>...

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0411121728.4c8d403e@posting.google.com...

Evidence of a designer(s) of biology is that biology began to exist
and has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.

That isn't evidence, that's a conclusion.

<snip>

Evidence of a designer(s) of this newsgroup post is that this post
began to exist and has the appearance of having been designed by
intelligence/ mind.

Yes, but you left out the relevant part: what is it about the post that
gives it the appearance of having been designed by a mind? (I'll pass on the
word 'intelligence'...). I mean: I could easily write a computer program
which produces hundreds of copies of your email, or even variants on it
(hell, given the repetitiveness of your output I could probably reproduce
your entire newsgroup presence). No one reading them could know which one
was produced mechanically and which was produced by a 'mind'. So what you're
talking about, essentially, is doing what Dennett calls 'taking the
intentional stance' (see my post on the subject recently in the 'is
psychology a science' thread).

Why don't you ask Richard Dawkins?

You are aware, aren't you, that Dawkins is an atheist, and merely talks of
the appearance of design (something which I for one think he massively
overstate).

Do you think Monod similarly [AC]"massively overstate[d]" [AC]"the
appearance of design"?

The atheist biochemist and Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod
floats the idea that criteria for distinguishing "artificial objects,
products of a conscious purposive activity" are a) spatial order and
b) "specimens of closely similar objects":
The suitable criteria, we see, would be two in number: (a)
regularity, and (b) repetition. By means of the first one [we]
would seek to make use of the fact that natural objects, wrought
by the play of physical forces, almost never present
geometrically simple and straightforward structures: flat
surfaces, for instance, or rectilinear edges, right angles, exact
symmetries; whereas artifacts will ordinarily show such features,
if only in an approximate or rudimentary manner.141

Monod does not actually accept these criteria, for he acknowledges the
existence of "simple and repetitive geometries" in "atomic and
molecular structures" such as the DNA helix and crystals, and "simple
and repeated geometrical structures of the [bee's] honeycombs," and
"bilateral and translational" symmetry in bees, and yet rejects the
possibility that intelligence is in any way responsible for the
spatial order and repeated spatial order of the aforementioned
things.142

Ref in
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

Wasn't I clear enough for you David?

Haven't we talked enough on this
subject?

Dawkins (and anyone else) who asserts the appearance of design in
living systems is overstating the case.

Can you demonstrate how the designer actually designed life, the universe,
or whatever level you move the goalposts to?

Can you demonstrate how the
designer constructed life, the universe, or whatever level you move the
goalposts to?

What forces did the designer employ?

These are reasonable
questions to be asked of anyone claiming any entity was created by an active
intelligence, as opposed to simply natural forces. Will you try to answer,
or will you simply respond with more self-referential links?

Can you even
answer the question?