Technology and Evolution

[sandy_mcd]

Science admits and has proven in certain circumstances that we are "literally" machines, right???

I suppose I should let Science speak for itself, but the answer still depends on what your definition of "machine" is.

ma·chine
1a. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.
1b. A simple device, such as a lever, a pulley, or an inclined plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an applied force; a simple machine.
2. A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or a jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment.
3. A system or device, such as a computer, that performs or assists in the performance of a human task: The machine is down.
4. An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body.
5. A person who acts in a rigid, mechanical, or unconscious manner.
6. An organized group of people whose members are or appear to be under the control of one or more leaders: a political machine.
7a. A device used to produce a stage effect, especially a mechanical means of lowering an actor onto the stage.
7b. A literary device used to produce an effect, especially the introduction of a supernatural being to resolve a plot.
8. An answering machine: Leave a message on my machine if I'm not home.

I would say
1a yes
1b probably
2 possibly
3 no, not the way it is written
4 definitely yes
5 yes
6 perhaps, in an odd way
7a no
7b no
8 no

Is that good enough?

[godslanguage]

What should I tell my Biology professor if he enforces his materialistic philosophy on me?

[godslanguage]

So, you didn't know what I meant when I used the word machine. Many biologists and others in the biology field have use this word. Are they using it the wrong way. If the initial definition of machine arose by literal machines which perform certain functions in mechanical (physical) structures and evolved to mean many things, and after being adapted by biology, does the basic foundation of the definition of the machine not understood in the basic detail for which it was understood in the first place.

So would a "device that performs a certain function" be more adequate to use.

[sandy_mcd]

What should I tell my Biology professor if he enforces his materialistic philosophy on me?

Tell him the answer he expects so you can get a good grade. Preface statements with "It is commonly thought ...", "Current belief is ...", and "At present people think ..." if that bothers you.
There is a basic issue here "Who gets to decide what is science and what is religion?"/ "Is this a theocracy or a democracy?", but that is a topic for another thread.

[sandy_mcd]

Godslanguage, different people use words with slightly or drastically different meanings all the time. Why not just make the point concerning machines that you want and then see if anyone disagrees with your usage of that term.
Or would you prefer more info? [selected from OED, foreign characters deleted, bold added]

[< Middle French, French machine < classical Latin (cf. MACIGNO n.) < ancient Greek (Doric) (cf. ancient Greek (Attic) see MECHANIC a. and n.), prob. related to 'means, expedient, remedy', perh. ult. < the Indo-European base of MAY v.1 Cf. Spanish máquina (1444), Italian macchina (15th cent.); German Maschine, Dutch machine, Swedish maskin are all 17th-cent. borrowings from French.
The sense 'a fabric or structure, esp. the fabric of the universe' is present in classical Latin (but not in ancient Greek), and is the first one attested in Middle French (1377). The sense 'stratagem' is not present in classical Latin and is only attested in French from 1639; it is sparingly attested in post-classical Latin in British sources from Aldhelm to William of Malmesbury (and similarly machinamentum MACHINAMENT n. down to the end of the 13th cent.), but is in English prob. independently < MACHINE v. 1: cf. ancient Greek 'shifts, devices, wiles', and the Italian sense 'a conspiracie, a stratagem, a contriuing' recorded by Florio (1598). The application to the living human and animal body is a development of sense 1a; cf. the similar sense in French 'the combination of organs of a living body' first attested in Descartes (1637). The sense 'vehicle' (without the connotation 'mechanism') appears to be a distinctively English development of sense 1a: in French (from 1817 denoting a bicycle), Dutch, and German, such use is restricted to metonymic use for a vehicle with a 'mechanism' or 'engine' (as a bicycle, automobile, locomotive, aeroplane, etc.). Sense 6, 'apparatus, appliance, instrument', is one of the earliest senses in ancient Greek, common in classical Latin and post-classical Latin, and attested from 1559 in Middle French and French. The sense 'penis', developed from it, is also attested in French, in 1748 and 1750. The sense 'military engine' is in ancient Greek from Thucydides onwards, and is common in classical Latin and post-classical Latin; it is first attested in French in 1671. The sense 'a large work (of art)' is attested in French from 1566, and the theatrical use (sense 4a) from 1650.
A number of passages imply by their metre that the word could be stressed on the first syllable in earlier modern English (e.g. quot. 1599 at sense 1a: the latest evidence below is quot. 1702 at sense 1c). The earliest evidence for stress on the second syllable is quot. 1681 at sense 4.]

I. A structure regarded as functioning as an independent body, without mechanical involvement.

1. a. A material or immaterial structure, esp. the fabric of the world or of the universe; a construction or edifice. Now rare.
1545 in J. Schäfer Early Mod. Eng. Lexicogr. (1989) II. s.v., The hole machyne of this world is divided in .2. parte. That is to saye, in the celestiall and into the elementall regions. 1545 in J. Schäfer Early Mod. Eng. Lexicogr. (1989) II. s.v., Machine, hath many significacions, but here it is taken for the worke of the hole worlde. c1550 Complaynt Scotl. (1979) 2 The maist illustir potent prince of the maist fertil & pacebil realme, vndir the machine of the supreme olimp. 1599 A. HUME Hymnes sig. B4, Be his wisedome,..sa wondrouslie of nocht, This machin round, this vniuers, this vther warld he wrocht. 1673 H. HICKMAN Hist. Quinq-articularis 518 They that asserted Universal redemption by the death of Christ destroyed the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination. 1682 N. O. tr. N. Boileau-Despréaux Lutrin I. 239 Behind this Machine [sc. a pulpit], cover'd as with a skreen, The Sneaking Chanter scarce could then be seen. 1753 J. HANWAY Hist. Acct. Brit. Trade Caspian Sea (1762) I. V. lxii. 286 Her imperial majesty is drawn..in a large machine, which contains her bed, a table, and other conveniences...This machine is set on a sledge, and drawn by twenty-four post horses. 1791 C. SMITH Celestina (ed. 2) I. 129 Her new laylock bonnet..for the safety of which she was so solicitous that she would have taken the great machine in which it was contained into the coach, had it not been opposed by the coachman. a1806 J. BARRY in R. N. Wornum Lect. Painting (1848) v. 196 Had the whole of this great machine of the Fontana di Trevi been committed to any one of those sculptors. 1829 R. HALL Wks. (1832) VI. 457 The mind casts its eye over the whole machine of society. 1878 R. BROWNING La Saisiaz 279 To each mortal peradventure earth becomes a new machine.

2. A living body, esp. the human body considered in general or individually. Now chiefly fig. from sense 6b (cf. sense 8b).
1604 SHAKESPEARE Haml. II. ii. 125 Thine euermore most deere Lady, whilst this machine is to him. 1699 S. GARTH Dispensary V. 54 And shall so useful a Machin as I Engage in civil Broyls, I know not why? 1709 J. REYNOLDS Death's Vision ix. 50 What Nobler Souls the Nobler Machins Wear. 1712 J. ADDISON Spectator No. 387 ¶2 Cheerfulness is..the best Promoter of Health. Repinings..wear out the Machine insensibly. 1722 J. QUINCY Lex. Physico-medicum (ed. 2) 17 Until some Authors..have demonstrated the Laws of Circulation in an Animal Machine. 1805 Med. Jrnl. 14 181 When a product of diseased action has been effected,..in consequence of which the machine becomes again sensible to the impressions of ordinary causes. 1807 WORDSWORTH Poems I. 15 And now I see with eye serene The very pulse of the machine. 1876 W. H. PREECE & J. SIVEWRIGHT Telegraphy 114 The human machine tires, and as a consequence not only is the speed of working reduced, but [etc.]. 1915 W. S. MAUGHAM Of Human Bondage cx. 582 He wondered whether at the very end, now that the machine was painfully wearing itself out, the clergyman still believed in immortality.

[godslanguage]

Thanks for making a few points. But the fact remains that technology completely negates what evolution assumes and as I am in the field of technology I can only take my own perspective on things through the basis of what my understanding is in that field and not from the purely biological stand point.

[sandy_mcd]

But the fact remains that technology completely negates what evolution assumes and as I am in the field of technology I can only take my own perspective on things through the basis of what my understanding is in that field and not from the purely biological stand point.

How again does technology negate what evolution assumes? As gman quoted "We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel". At one time in history, we "knew" that organic chemicals could only be made by living things, then a chemist synthesized urea. Knowing the processes by which computers are made and the conditions on the earth and basic chemistry, it is reasonable to say that computers will not spontaneously appear on the earth. As a technologist, do you really know enough about chemistry and biology to say that complex life requires a designer? If so, why is this? [Note: I am not saying no designer was required, just that our current state of knowledge of nature is not advanced enough to make this claim. It takes a lot more knowledge to say that something can't happen than to do something.]

[sandy_mcd]

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 have never evolved in the sense that biologists say that living things evolve. Living species evolve when they change in response to the environment. People change computers, computers do not evolve. I have two boards of ferrite core memory. AFAIK, no one has ever claimed that ferrite core memory naturally evolved into ROM. So how does technology negate biological evolution? [Remember that to a little boy with a hammer, most things look like nails.]

[godslanguage]

Living species evolve when they change in response to the environment. People change computers, computers do not evolve.

Computers evolved with intelligent input, if you don't see it that way, then I have no other way of putting it for you, there is no way out of this one.

People produce intelligence, computers need intelligent input to evolve.

I have two boards of ferrite core memory. AFAIK, no one has ever claimed that ferrite core memory naturally evolved into ROM. So how does technology negate biological evolution?

It negates it because technology only prospers around intelligence and evolution seems to prosper through random processes and stupidity.

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks for making a few points. But the fact remains that technology completely negates what evolution assumes and as I am in the field of technology I can only take my own perspective on things through the basis of what my understanding is in that field and not from the purely biological stand point.

Perhaps when your favorite tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail?

[David Blacklock]

Gman says: Anyways they really aren't my questions... I'm reading this out of Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box"..

DB: Regardless of what mainstream scientists might think of that book...it is over ten years old, isn't it? Behe, himself, might not make those particular quotes any more.

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

DB: How 'bout a snowflake

Gman says: How come evolution (random processes) is capable of developing such complex structures...since it doesn't involve intelligent input???.

DB: You left out natural selection. Here's what evolutionists believe - that random processes are acted on by natural selection - the process where reproducing entities must compete for finite resources. In this struggle, improvements automatically occur, eventually (hundreds of millions of years) generating breathtakingly ingenious designs.

[Canuckster1127]

Gman says: Anyways they really aren't my questions... I'm reading this out of Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box"..

DB: Regardless of what mainstream scientists might think of that book...it is over ten years old, isn't it? Behe, himself, might not make those particular quotes any more.

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

DB: How 'bout a snowflake

Gman says: How come evolution (random processes) is capable of developing such complex structures...since it doesn't involve intelligent input???.

DB: You left out natural selection. Here's what evolutionists believe - that random processes are acted on by natural selection - the process where reproducing entities must compete for finite resources. In this struggle, improvements automatically occur, eventually (hundreds of millions of years) generating breathtakingly ingenious designs.

I imagine Behe is a work in process as are we all.

Snowflakes show pattern based upon physical attributes, as do crystals etc. It's a pretty far stretch to claim that as a foundation for the appearance of design.

The analogy to counter that I believe would be something along the lines a seeing physical qualities in iron ore and other metals and imagining an outboard motor could eventually arise by chance.

In terms of the final quote, there are plenty of evolutionists, (theistic ones) who would disagree with your characterization. I believe what you are describing secular evolutionists or perhaps methodological naturalists who would appeal to evolution by chance, natural selection and long periods of time as an argument against the need for or existence of God. That's a decidedly philosophical position rather than a purely scientific one. It's not necessarily a given that evolution leads to these conclusions, not that God could not have used evolution as his means in part or whole to accomplish his purpose.

I'm not in agreement with much in this area, but I believe you need to examine what is scientific and what is philosophical and be honest about it.

[Gman]

Gman says: Anyways they really aren't my questions... I'm reading this out of Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box"..

DB: Regardless of what mainstream scientists might think of that book...it is over ten years old, isn't it? Behe, himself, might not make those particular quotes any more.

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

DB: How 'bout a snowflake

Gman says: How come evolution (random processes) is capable of developing such complex structures...since it doesn't involve intelligent input???.

DB: You left out natural selection. Here's what evolutionists believe - that random processes are acted on by natural selection - the process where reproducing entities must compete for finite resources. In this struggle, improvements automatically occur, eventually (hundreds of millions of years) generating breathtakingly ingenious designs.

David, if you can explain (or prove) to me how a mixture of non-living chemicals can transform itself into a living cell via natural selection I'm all ears...

G -

[David Blacklock]

Hi Bart....I stand by my snowflake analogy. I'm undoubtedly not giving the word design the full gamut of powers here you might think it deserves. Patterns show design. In the case of a snowflake, it represents the tendency of molecules to aggregate according to rules of physics.

Iron ore to outboard motor analogy, not having a biological component, has no natural selection, therefore not analogous to evolution.

Theistic evolution belief runs a gamut of definitions which most certainly includes my above statement. See wikkipedia's definition.

What? You don't like Wikkipedia's definition? Anyone can edit Wikkipedia, and the reason I would suggest that Wikkipedia is valid is that it is likely to represent the middle of the Bell-shaped curve of opinions at any given time. Wouldn't utilizing a definition from an interest group situated along the periphery of the Bell-shaped curve somewhere be pandering to the non-mainstream definition that group prefers?

Of course, the majority of people can believe something and it still be wrong...ID, for example :>)

[Canuckster1127]

Hi Bart....I stand by my snowflake analogy. I'm undoubtedly not giving the word design the full gamut of powers here you might think it deserves. Patterns show design. In the case of a snowflake, it represents the tendency of molecules to aggregate according to rules of physics.

Iron ore to outboard motor analogy, not having a biological component, has no natural selection, therefore not analogous to evolution.

Theistic evolution belief runs a gamut of definitions which most certainly includes my above statement. See wikkipedia's definition.

What? You don't like Wikkipedia's definition? Anyone can edit Wikkipedia, and the reason I would suggest that Wikkipedia is valid is that it is likely to represent the middle of the Bell-shaped curve of opinions at any given time. Wouldn't utilizing a definition from an interest group situated along the periphery of the Bell-shaped curve somewhere be pandering to the non-mainstream definition that group prefers?

Of course, the majority of people can believe something and it still be wrong...ID, for example :>)

Patterns do indicate design, but as you state they are based upon physical characterists and lack the elements of interaction, and synergy.

I like Wiki. I just recognize it's limitations, particularly in the realm of higher knowledge or precise definitions. Especially when Wiki becomes the battleground in terms of definitions being engineered to

Your answer doesn't address the fact that evolution as a science can only demonstrate process. It can not prove or disprove intelligent design or guidance external to the process itself.

Do you recognize lines between philosophy and science in this regard?