ant wrote:Upon examination what evidence would you look for which would indicate beyond a reasonable doubt additive code was authored by an intelligent "Agent"?

Beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't know of any evidence that would get us to that point. Proving a negative would be difficult I think. Is there any positive evidence for your hypothesis?

The best we could do I imagine is to find what parameters govern mutations. Find those parameters, then you have a full matrix of possible genetic changes and shifts. Take that and compare it to the difference between homo sapiens and the next nearest evolutionary relative. If there are differences that fall outside the matrix of possible genetic drift, then we would have to figure out why. When we get there, and if we struggle figuring out why, your hypothesis would be one of many considered.

Of course there would be other hypotheses, most of which would be naturalistic. How would we know the genetic modifications weren't the product of sentient aliens? Anyone who wants to believe the intelligence would be a god rather than an alien would scoff at the idea, of course. But how implausible do you think it is? I can foresee a possible future where our species modifies the genetic code of life on another planet to elevate one to sentience. What a gift. Or would it be a curse? Ignorance is bliss.

ant wrote:If you can entertain this possibilty, then imagine yourself examining genetic code that had been altered or upgraded

I think it's inevitable that we'll understand our genetic code enough to modify it. We've already started, even though most attempts are shots in the dark at this point. The complexity of causal infrastructure will take many large computers to understand. The process from single cell to grown adult is all chemistry, from what we can tell. Chemistry is all math based. At some point we'll have a computer that can take any genetic code you throw at it and produce a model of the organism in a fraction of a second. An idealized version, of course. Actual development from code to lifeform involves unknown environmental variables. Think twins with different fingerprints due to variations of mechanical forces and nutrient allocation while in the womb.

We could never have an avian beak. The boat sailed on that a long time ago.

We could have a structure that superficially looks like a beak, the same way that an insect's bristles look like hair, but they would never be the same structure.

As to why we would evolve beaks...? i don't think so.

Thanks to our mastery of technology, i doubt very much the selective pressure is in place to push us in the direction of bigger or more powerful ingest structures. It was probably technology which allowed for the current degeneration of our mandibles, as fire breaks down the physical structure of our food allowing for weaker jaws to eat steak, which allows for smaller less robust jaw muscles, which allows for the slow expansion of our craniums and the removal of that bone ridge seen in other animals which anchors their powerful jaw muscles.

Now couple our mastery of fire and our ability to process foods there seems no reason to have more robust jaw structures, so i don't see how a beak would be benefitial. Especially as our REAL evolutionary advantage hinges on the sharing of ideas, and that is primarily fascilitated with language.

I don't doubt that our face structures might change, but i don't know what environmental pressures would influence it at this point.

Ant,
Really? You think i would favor a beak over mathematical reasoning? You must start feeling really itchy, wrestling with those straw men all day.

Ant,
Really? You think i would favor a beak over mathematical reasoning? You must start feeling really itchy, wrestling with those straw men all day.

That's pretty cute. By what reasoning you are calling it a straman is beyond me.

My point about preferring a beak over mathematical reasoning that endows you with the ability to, say, measure the distance between two stars is to highlight the fact that within the context of Darwinian Evolution, a beak means more to the survival of the species than appreciating Mozart, or Shakespeare, or authoring a classical score, or performing an act of radical altruism to save the life of a total stranger.

If you are devoted to natural selection as an explanatory hypothesis for the complexity that is the hominid, then you must at least attempt to explain why it is that profound mathematical abilities are a product of natural selection's survival mechanisms.

Or did I overlook it?
Let me look while you try to make the elephant in the room disappear.

so you are claiming that you don't understand how the ability to understand the world and make connections about events could be even more benefitial to our survival than having a beak which can crack open nuts?

Mathematics, at it's root, is just understanding relationships. 2 is 1, twice. Over to my left is one chicken, to my right are two chickens. When i make a move to grab one, they will all run away. I have a better chance if i go after the two chickens.

ta-dah! mathematical reasoning is useful!

I think the real elephant in the room would be how you have contorted your brain to the point you think that someone like me would be making the argument that it would be better to have a beak which can open walnuts, rather than the kind of reasoning abilities that would allow you to make nut crackers... and telecommunications, and medicine, and agriculture.

ant wrote:. . . If you are devoted to natural selection as an explanatory hypothesis for the complexity that is the hominid, then you must at least attempt to explain why it is that profound mathematical abilities are a product of natural selection's survival mechanisms.

Or did I overlook it?
Let me look while you try to make the elephant in the room disappear.

Ant, really? What other theories are being put forth to explain the evolution and diversity of life on the planet earth? There are none. You are basically making the Intelligent Design argument of irreducible complexity—nothing more than a repackaged God of the Gaps. There is zero evidence to support an intelligent designer. You are just looking for gaps in our scientific knowledge and saying that there must be a God. That's not a theory. And it's certainly no "elephant in the room."

By the way these arguments have already been soundly refuted by—whoa!—actual scientists. Indeed there was a test case in the 2004 Dover school district trial challenging a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom (based on the concept of irreducible complexity). But as the trial made abundantly clear, there is no theory to teach, and the argument for irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution.

"As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means."

"As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)).

"We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Ant, really? What other theories are being put forth to explain the evolution and diversity of life on the planet earth? There are none. You are basically making the Intelligent Design argument of irreducible complexity—nothing more than a repackaged God of the Gaps. There is zero evidence to support an intelligent designer. You are just looking for gaps in our scientific knowledge and saying that there must be a God. That's not a theory. And it's certainly no "elephant in the room."

By the way these arguments have already been soundly refuted by—whoa!—actual scientists. Indeed there was a test case in the 2004 Dover school district trial challenging a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom (based on the concept of irreducible complexity). But as the trial made abundantly clear, there is no theory to teach, and the argument for irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution.

Why is the default response an accusation of an attempt at arguing for IC?
That is not my angle here, nor is your knee-jerk reaction to the question I've posed an adequate response. It is actually very dismissive. It is a total diversion from what I wish to broach for consideration here:
We are not simply talking about "diversity" in an obvious and dare I say banal sense. We are speaking of a highly radical form of difference - conscious "animals" (that's what we are reduced to aren't we?) and "life"

Let me be clear here: I am NOT looking for "gaps" as evidence for anything. We could dedicate an entire website to list the gaps in our knowledge of the natural world. I do not need to sneak in a gap or two here and there as an "argument" strategy.

The fact that there are "no other theories" does NOT make the current theory the correct one.
Are you saying it does? That's rather fallacious reasoning, don't you think?

We have ONE theory to explain the development and complexity of life (including CONSCIOUS LIFE) spanning eons of geological epics, all within countless environmental theaters, and you'd like to christen it as THE explanation?
Is that reasonable? "This is all we got, so, yeah, this is our origin"
Really?

Why can't an explanation for what I've brought to the discussion be required, or perhaps even demanded, if some are bold enough to assert evolution by natural selection also explains the abilities that consciousness no doubt is responsible for.

I'd say the only intellectually honest response here is that the one theory we have is not nearly as vigorous an explanation for ALL aspects of "life," particularly those that relate to what must be considered profoundly mysterious twigs on the tree of life.
(and don't give me the "mystery equals God must have done it" line. I can not say He did it and you can not say He didn't. those both would be metaphysical claims. both "no'no's" in this discussion)

It's a little cheap to avoid those twigs, is it not?

Why is my question not being attended to in a serious manner?

ant wrote: We are not simply talking about "diversity" in an obvious and dare I say banal sense. We are speaking of a highly radical form of difference - conscious "animals" (that's what we are reduced to aren't we?) and "life"

I would dispute that we are that different from our simian brethren. That's why earlier I was going on and on about the Great Chain of Being. We imagine ourselves as far and away above the animals, but we're not. This is a speciesist bias. Bonobos and humans share almost 99 per cent of the same genetic code. We are much more closely related to bonobos than bonobos are related to gorillas. Think about that for a minute. Chimpanzees, bonobos and humans are members of the same genus, or would be if scientists in the 1800s had been consistent with their classifications. We were given a separate homo genus only because people have a hard time accepting our place as the third chimpanzee.

Recall Dawkins' thought experiment of photographs of our grandmother next to a photograph of the great grandmother next to a photo of a great great grandmother, etc. and so on across different species. As Dawkins says, there never was a first human. Never did a homo erectus give birth to a homo sapien. We are closely linked to all other life forms on the planet.

Jared Diamond has come up with some very compelling explanations as to why humans with less than two percent difference in DNA have diverged so greatly from our next closest (living) relatives—bonobos and chimpanzees. And also why homo sapien outsurvived homo erectus and other homo ancestors. If memory serves, Diamond suggests that what gave us the edge is a larger brain and capacity for language. Our capacity for language nay have been introduced by a genetic mutation, causing a tiny change in anatomy that gave us the ability to make a large variety of vowel sounds.

In a discussion such as this, it's probably crucial to examine the definition of life. The fact is, there's a very muddy area between clumps of molecules and simple organisms. These are some very arbitrary dividing lines. And borrowing Dawkins' thought experiment, you can perhaps imagine a long line of life forms, each one only slightly different from the next, going back several billion years. At one end of the line is homo sapien and at the other a clump of organic molecules. The concept of gradual transition is very important in understanding evolution.

The other thing we should examine is the nature of consciousness. We are beginning to see that, in fact, most of our decisions, actions, emotions and behavior depend on brain activity that is beyond conscious awareness. How in charge are we really? Do we in fact have more consciousness than the chimpanzees? We probably do, but it's likely not that much greater.

ant wrote: The fact that there are "no other theories" does NOT make the current theory the correct one.
Are you saying it does? That's rather fallacious reasoning, don't you think?

We have ONE theory to explain the development and complexity of life (including CONSCIOUS LIFE) spanning eons of geological epics, all within countless environmental theaters, and you'd like to christen it as THE explanation?
Is that reasonable? "This is all we got, so, yeah, this is our origin"
Really?

There are no other theories because Darwin's theory beautifully explains the richness and diversity of life. Evolution is widely accepted as fact because it is supported by a vast preponderance of evidence. If it doesn't make sense to you, that's really your fault. There are many great books out there.

ant wrote: I'd say the only intellectually honest response here is that the one theory we have is not nearly as vigorous an explanation for ALL aspects of "life," particularly those that relate to what must be considered profoundly mysterious twigs on the tree of life.

This is simply not true. The idea that consciousness or math ability is not explained by evolution is a strange interpretation. We don't understand all the mechanisms of evolution, but there are no "profoundly mysterious twigs on the tree of life." You're just making this up. No credible scientist would agree with this statement.

Actually if you're looking for unlikely evolutionary events, the emergence of RNA and DNA is crazy improbable. To heck with eyes and math ability. DNA gave primitive life forms the ability to create copies of themselves from blueprints. Life forms no longer had start from scratch every time. No more random clumps of molecules. The importance of this event is really quite mind boggling. Dawkins talks about it in The Selfish Gene. It helps to appreciate the vast length of time we're talking about (in the billions of years) and the notion of countless random sequences. But if I was looking for a miracle, this would probably be it .

We have ONE theory to explain the development and complexity of life (including CONSCIOUS LIFE) spanning eons of geological epics, all within countless environmental theaters, and you'd like to christen it as THE explanation?
Is that reasonable? "This is all we got, so, yeah, this is our origin"
Really?

There wouldn't be "another theory" that evolution would be replaced by. Too much of the theory has already been confirmed by evidence. At most, it would mutate just as it has been mutating since Darwin. Any new theory would have to account for the entire span of evidence that's already been uncovered. Which means, it would more or less be the same as it is today, except that it would account for whatever anomaly gave it birth. The theory is here to stay ant, it is the explanation, though it's form will no doubt shift.

I'd say the only intellectually honest response here is that the one theory we have is not nearly as vigorous an explanation for ALL aspects of "life," particularly those that relate to what must be considered profoundly mysterious twigs on the tree of life.

Sure. At some point, our capabilities are better explained by theories of information rather than evolution. Our philosophies and mathematics. But the processor in which this thinking happens is a product of evolution, of course.

johnson1010 wrote:We could never have an avian beak. The boat sailed on that a long time ago.

This is a really good point. I think it's important to understand that the process of evolution is limited by available resources. All of our different capabilities use up energy, but there's only so much energy to go around. Some bird ancestor long ago found its niche, groping around for grubs and insects. This bird prototype (probably a dinosaur) began to adapt beaks to help them to catch the food they needed to survive and adapt to its niche. That's why there are different beaks for different kinds of food, why the heron has a long bill to help it catch fish and why the woodpecker has a sharp and stout beak that doubles as an instrument for digging into wood.

Why does the giraffe have such a long neck? That seems a very unlikely adaptation. Then again, how many critters failed to adapt and so perished along the way? We are only seeing the success stories and that's why evolution has the appearance of being intelligent.

The flounder provides a pretty interesting case study for the sometimes bizarre permuations of evolution. Basically, the flatfish spent so much time swimming on its side and looking up that eventually its bone structure changed and the eyes moved around to its side. It's asymmetric and pretty ugly but it does the trick and it helped the flatfish to find its own niche.

Interestingly enough, flounder embryos and larvae are symmetrical.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... y-looking/

evo/devo is the study of that phenomena that geo pointed out. In some respects the embrionic stages of development mimic our lineage. For instance crabs look different from shrimp, in that crabs don't appear to have tails, but crab young do have tails which fold up under their carapace during maturation to give them that unique look.