Technology and Evolution

[godslanguage]

I just wanted to ask a question on where you stand on technology and evolution.

Everything in the world of technology is based on Input and Output, whether it be, data transmission (computer chips/processors/circuits/, networking/communications), whether it be in automotive or anything else, all technology is based on it. There are the physical components which are designed to perform specific input and output processes, lets used computers since they are a good example of it. Chips such as TTL chips found on PC's or CMOS found on laptops for example, they are built from semi-conductor devices. These semi-conductors form Transistors which are embedded as physical components inside the chip that each have differant physical connections to underline what the chip should be performing or how processing of I/O of (bits) should be done. I am not going further with details on this, because I am just trying to make a point here. Now computers perform just like a human, they have the brain of the computer ie: composed of the hard drive, memory and CPU. The Motherboard which interconnects all of these together like a body with bus lines (like nerves in your body) that include controllers which control communications of data between the CPU and the initial device. You initially have two layers here, the hardware and you have the software. The software is developement tools which are used to program these chips, (micro-assembly language, c programming up to java) .

These programming languages essentially were designed produce a certain "function"/s which is electrically/physically transmitted through conductors at a frequency which on the physical level tell the chip what it should be doing, in the end, tell it what function it should perform--as opposed to no function at all.

What is happening here is that you have a base for something, a physical component, you have the actual language which is designed to talk with the hardware, and to talk with that hardware, you need to know how to talk to it, using that language and know what components will be talking to each other. Nothing will talk/communicate unless the hardware is laid out and a programmer is behind the wheel communicating directly or indirectly with the hardware side. To explain what that component is going to perform, you cannot explain it merely by it physical appearance or even if you could see how pulses of electricity(formed by the electrons flowing through the copper wire) (bits) are going into and out the chips etc...
You still wouldn't have any clue as to what is going on. I mean, you would never be able to figure out what its doing without looking at the programmers code or the running application, and some programming code is still pritty complex, and it is hard to read, to know whats happening inside that code, sometimes you gotta ask the programmer/coder what the hell is going on, because its his own "unique" code. Ofcourse there is rules you must follow in a language such as syntax and what the capabilities of the program language are, it will be hard to get, but eventially you will understand the function of the program. Ofcourse, no program would be written without an intended purpose, otherwise, it would just be a waste of time.

All in all, the computer has evolved in a sense, it has emerged from the beginning from the discovery of the first telephone(bell) to semi-conductors to nano-technology to fiber-optics etc...All technologies I believe, in a sense evolved to what computer capabilities are today. But, NEVER have they ever evolved without any intelligent input behind them. Computers can be explained in a natural sense, right down to its nano-size components and even down to its atomic structure.

So, to get down to my question:
Computers are a natural component, created by humans who are also natural. Cells composed of DNA are millions of time more complex than a computer. The DNA as opposed to a semi-conductor in a computer also has an atomic structure.

Now, ofcouse, nowadays, we use the term "evolution" for everything, this and that evolved and yaa, it became what it is now.

How can evolution miss the part about "intelligence" completely and prescribe it to random processes which are not evident in everything else but darwinian evolution itself?

[Silvertusk]

That is a good post and a good question - wish i had a good answer.

Silvertusk

[thereal]

Not that it is a simple answer to your questions, but the major problem I see with your analogy is that computers don't reproduce. Natural selection, as it relates breeding, and mutation, are major influences of evolution, but there doesn't seem to be any equivalent process with the manufacture of computers. If computers could self-replicate, exhibited heritable variation in what they produced, and occasionally had totally new traits pop up from nowhere, that would be a more realistic analogy.

[August]

and occasionally had totally new traits pop up from nowhere, that would be a more realistic analogy.

So in evolution that happens?

[sandy_mcd]

Thereal explained some of the non-analogous parts of your analogy.

A fundamental problem is that when people say living things have "evolved" and computers have "evolved", almost everyone is using two different meanings for "evolved".

[thereal]

So in evolution that happens?

I was referring to mutations.

[godslanguage]

Not that it is a simple answer to your questions, but the major problem I see with your analogy is that computers don't reproduce.
Natural selection, as it relates breeding, and mutation, are major influences of evolution, but there doesn't seem to be any equivalent process with the manufacture of computers. If computers could self-replicate, exhibited heritable variation in what they produced, and occasionally had totally new traits pop up from nowhere, that would be a more realistic analogy.

I am by no means an expert in programming or computers, experts are the ones teaching others how this stuff works, I am just a regular guy who thinks that complicated things, things such as computers, have intelligence written all over it, and to think that to produce intelligence doesn't require intelligent input is absurd. Humans are intelligent, without humans being intelligent you would gain nothing, develop nothing. I think you need intelligent source for everything, and I mean everything we see around us, even if its a little less complex then the other, it is just hard to think about, and this is the only reason why I believe random processes and luck could be used to explain the unimaginable.

When you "create" a program, the format of that program usually looks something like this:
----------------
"previously defined functions"
ie: functions that have already been written inside a file that is included so that programmers can re-use the code without going through the trouble of creating it again.

"user defined functions" ie: defined functions by the programmer which the programmer creates manually from scratch.

"main program" (this is all that gets executed in a program)
You can call either "user-defined" functions or you can call "previously defined" functions into the main segment of the program. This main segment combines the functions to perform the main application, ie: the big task such as connecting to a printer(eg: IP address), then sending data to it, the printer prints it out.
--------------------

Functions usually perform one task, a basic example would be to multiply 2 numbers, or to generate a random number from 1-10 and can call another function to help in its own function. Nevertheless, functions perform one task.

That being said, I could only imagine how many functions or tasks must enabling the human eye to function, the brain, legs, arms etc...

When you create the program and you run the program. The program is actually doing things on its own. It then performs the main function without user intervention, unless it is required ofcourse. In that case, I see no reason why programs in the future that might even "self-learn" and even create more advanced programs on their own. Components could even self-assemble when they are guided by the intelligent source code. I am saying might and could, but they probably will. You have machines making other mahines, before you had people in an assembly line at for example: Ford plant, now you have machines doing most if not all of the work for you. The highest possible level would be for these components to assemble themselves into a car, (which should have four wheels in the end and should have at least 300 horsepower in my opinion)



How this relates to God. Since there is nothing else like God, we are his ultimate creation, we are the most advanced technology ever designed and we should submit and bow to God, not to ourselves. Humans will never achieve what God Himself did, that is my opinion.

That being said, There are only two scenarios I would think God could have used for the creation.

God must have taken existing functions in nature to create humans.
OR God must have created it all from scratch.

[sandy_mcd]

The highest possible level would be for these components to assemble themselves into a car, (which should have four wheels in the end and should have at least 300 horsepower in my opinion)

The car might perform better with the each of the 4 wheels at a corner rather than all at one end.

[godslanguage]

The highest possible level would be for these components to assemble themselves into a car, (which should have four wheels in the end and should have at least 300 horsepower in my opinion)

The car might perform better with the each of the 4 wheels at a corner rather than all at one end.

Right, I just assumed that everyone knew how a car looks like, but next time I will state it just in case someone has been living in a cave their entire life.

[godslanguage]

Thereal explained some of the non-analogous parts of your analogy.

A fundamental problem is that when people say living things have "evolved" and computers have "evolved", almost everyone is using two different meanings for "evolved".

I know, evolved doesn't seem to fit the picture. I prefer to use the word created, because it also takes time to create something doesn't it?

[Canuckster1127]

All analogies break down at some point.

In terms of reproduction and replication, it's not a perfect example, but isn't that the point of virii?

It is a primary point of the Intelligent Design argument that design and pattern point to a designer.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

When you "create" a program, the format of that program usually looks something like this:
----------------
"previously defined functions"
ie: functions that have already been written inside a file that is included so that programmers can re-use the code without going through the trouble of creating it again.

"user defined functions" ie: defined functions by the programmer which the programmer creates manually from scratch.

Intresting how you differentiate between the two. The complexity of routines have built up over time. Originally "simple functions" such as subtraction and communication between devices were simply cooption of existing processes.

Functions usually perform one task, a basic example would be to multiply 2 numbers, or to generate a random number from 1-10 and can call another function to help in its own function. Nevertheless, functions perform one task.

Even a function can be broken down into bit processing which is physically represented by transistors.

That being said, I could only imagine how many functions or tasks must enabling the human eye to function, the brain, legs, arms etc...

If you get down to it even the most complex computer funtion is a result of tiny transistors turning on and off. Even the most complex organ is a result of decoding four simple nucleic acids into proteins.

God must have taken existing functions in nature to create humans.
OR God must have created it all from scratch.

Are you sure that these are the only two options!!

[godslanguage]

The point is that you can look at the physical outline of the computer, you will never know what its actually performing, the function, the intelligence behind it, you cannot know just by the physical sum of parts and how they work tell me what the program/process is doing. In the case of the transistors turning on and off, they have intelligence as well, an order, in addition, they have an intelligent guiding process as well.

"...a result of decoding four simple nucleic acids into proteins."

Give me your definition of simple? The computer didn't assemble itself.

"Intresting how you differentiate between the two. The complexity of routines have built up over time. Originally "simple functions" such as subtraction and communication between devices were simply cooption of existing processes.

Actually, I am not differentiating the two. I am merely showing what a program consists of without getting technical about it. What I'm showing is how programs are created these days, languages such as C, C++, Java etc... use this type of absolute approach to programming, because those are the features of the program language (rules, syntax, etc..)

Complexity has built up overtime, could you show me one example besides the theory of evolution that doesn't require intelligent input?

If you get down to it even the most complex computer funtion is a result of tiny transistors turning on and off. Even the most complex organ is a result of decoding four simple nucleic acids into proteins.

...and those transistors, how do they work, the semi-conductor was also invented and without it a transistor wouldn't function. How do transistors work, they control how much current is flowing through it using semi-conductor material (example of types: NPN, PNP). You have intelligence all the way from the bottom up, you can't say these transistors turn on and off without specifying how those transistors work as well. Its not as simple as you put it.

To put it simply, I have a monitor in front of me. Program runs things that you can see, and that you can't see. I can't see the things in the background, sending and recieving data, I can physically say something is working with the tranisistors, can you tell me that function is doing without looking at the code involved? In terms of the visual representation, when i sent this form, the web browswer converted all the html tags into something more readable, I can thereofore look at the results of the function visually.
I would only know something is happening with the circuit but that circuit will never actually tell me what code was involved and the visual output itself.

[sandy_mcd]

In the case of the transistors turning on and off, they have intelligence as well, an order, in addition, they have an intelligent guiding process as well.

Are you saying transistors are intelligent?

[godslanguage]

In the case of the transistors turning on and off, they have intelligence as well, an order, in addition, they have an intelligent guiding process as well.

Are you saying transistors are intelligent?

The transistor itself is not intelligent, but the order in which the material is constructed is, it needed intelligent input to acquire its order.