Evolving Scientism
by BradfordRational Design is also reflected in precisely specified interactions. Such specified interactions work to maximize the fidelity of the flow of information, energy and/or material.- The Design Matrix by Mike Gene; Chapter 9; Rationality and Foresight; Page 252
In The Design Matrix. Mike has crafted good arguments outlining criteria that would guide one in detecting design. The book challenges conventional thinking without the 'take no prisoners attitude' that all too often marks exchanges about Intelligent Design. The greatest resistence to ideas outlined in the DM are not likely to be based on scientific data. Rather they are more likely to stem from a religious philosophy that makes evolutionary change a belief that is separated from its biological, empirical moorings.
The above quote is applicable to many human designs including the symbols you are looking at which make communication of the English language possible. Apparently some do not believe the alphabet was designed. When pressed as to how this symbolic system came into existence through a non-design process, an undetailed evolutionary explanation is suggested that is short on cause and effect scenarios. Assertions replace evidence.
You may have noted parallels to a biological process but unlike the biological process the alphabet evolution lacks specificity and supporting data. But it rings of a religious impulse. A belief supported by elements of faith replaces empirical data. Love for the concept of undirected gradual change replaces the need for evidence and logic. Alphabets do indeed "maximize the fidelity of the flow of information." Humans, capable of intelligent design, are known to have developed alphabets. The cognitive processes associated with symbolism and the nature of the symbolism itself are evidence of rational design to all but those having an unhealthy emotional attachment to the idea of undirected change. It is ritual like thinking on display not to be confused with sound science.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:12 am
There is a question: where knowledge comes from? Science helps us discover empirical knowledge, but science has been unable to answer this simple question. The question belongs to philosophy, and it was studied by Kant.
We look to religion and call in faith-based, but it is feeling based knowledge that has come upon a community expression. Sentience as feeling is evidence, and this self evidence does not require a reason for its being. Self evidence simply is, in all its starkness. The feeling is the synthesis of the provisional and the universal, and this is as far as philosophy can go (as a post-hoc evaluation of religion), but we can go further.
There is an emotional unwillingness to see intelligent design (ID) as a simple contradiction of Darwin's theory; and this unwillingness is apparent in both creationists, and Darwinists. The duck and rabbit, as you say, have their inclinations.
The innate equivocation is presented as a contrivence, an agenda that is full of dirty tricks, or what has come to be known as intelligent design with all the self-evident tension that ID brings, where the covert middle term is hidden beyond the synthesis of the representation and its recognition.
Hegel was able to go beyound Kant's dualism with this insight, though Hegel used his own system of words that are hard to understand. Edmund Husserl did a better job with self evidence leading to transcendental subjectivity. Brouwer developed his intuitionist mathematics with this insight, and Brouwer was also a mystic. Teilhard de Chardin was a mystic, and found purpose in evolution. When we move beyond science, and philosophy what we find are the mystics and saints, as they are on record showing a non-dual awareness.
There is one primal action, all other actions are provisional to the drive that pulls through our feelings (giving us volition despite the best preditions of science). Ducks and rabbits are angry because they feel something that has not yet been resolved.
Comment by Stephen — February 9, 2008 @ 2:12 am
February 9th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I will agree that the alphabet was designed, but what about the rest of language. Were the words designed, did someone make a conscious decision to call a table a table? Who decided about all those irregular verbs and why? Looking forward to evidence, not assertions!
Comment by The Pixie — February 9, 2008 @ 8:14 am
February 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Conscious decision as opposed to what- an unconscious decision? How did intelligent beings come to agree that t-a-b-l-e represents table without making a decision conscious or otherwise?
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 8:56 am
February 9th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Many people have thought that writing was a gift from the gods. Were they wrong? What evidence do you have to support your claim?
Tokens were used for accounting. Then impressions of tokens were used on containers (clay envelopes) of tokens. Then impressions of tokens were used as the records themselves. And that is the beginning of cuneiform writing.
This process took over 4000 years, generations just for the tokens to be discarded"”even when all the information was being recorded on the exterior of the containing clay envelope. The long stretch of time involved is convincing evidence that each step was taken without regard to any eventual development of an alphabet.
Tokens are evidence. Clay envelopes are evidence. Cuneiform tablets are evidence. You can continue to wave your hands, but Denise Schmandt-Besserat's work has been very influential in archaeology, and there is little remaining doubt that cuneiforms evolved from tokens.
There was no purposeful intention of creating an alphabet when tokens were replaced by marks in clay. They were counting sheep and had no conception that they were taking steps towards creating an alphabet.
The definition you provided of design, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details, does not appear to apply to the origin of the alphabet.
The Pixie got neither evidence nor assertions. Bradford, you avoided answering the question.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 11:36 am
February 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Zachriel:
I asked questions. You ought to try it when you do not know all the answers. It beats having to fake it.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 11:43 am
February 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
The question was whether words were designed. Did someone make the original decision to call a table a table? You didn't answer The Pixie's question, implying you don't know the answer. This is a previous exchange.
It's hard not to get the impression that you think this is not subject to question, though the origin of language is certainly of great interest to many scientists. This statement offers clarification:
We happen to know that the English word for table evolved from the Latin tabula. We can trace the evolution of the word through German and Old English. So, did someone make the original decision to call a table a table? Or was it due to minor and incidental changes as it was passed through the generations without any purposeful intention of ending up with the modern English word, "table"
I will certainly take your advice.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Because the 'other thread' is too long and I've no patience for childish trolling, I'll bring this here.
Zach:
There are several hypotheses about what's responsible for the vowel shift. Some say it was the result of immigration to southern England following the Black Death, where more attention was paid by the surviving natives to pronunciation separate from the Continental Latin derivatives, for the purpose of setting apart the English language as something unique to England (and forcing the immigrants to "speak proper English" in order to be accepted.
Others suggest it was the result of the notorious and long-standing state of perpetual warfare with the French, the English taking pains to set apart the English language as something unique to England.
A few suggest it was the result of some influential members of the aristocracy who had speech impediments (notoriously inbred, the lot of 'em), but whose status persuaded the lower classes to copy their speech patterns. Still others suggest that it was part of the concurrent attempt to standardize the spelling of English as printing and popular literacy took hold, at the same time the English were engaged in separating their language from French pronunciations.
But all of the explanations mention the concurrent work to standardize during the latter course of the vowel shift in pronunciation (majority falling on the side of separation from continental Latin derivatives to make the language unique from those with which the nation was forever at war). All indicate intent by the common speakers of the language, design by those engaged in standardizing the language and increasing care to standard by the writers who used the language to tell their tales. There are of course regional dialects and "proper," spoken by the aristocracy - the social authorities who determine what is "proper" and do the governing.
Mark Twain wrote some of his conversational exchanges in dialectic vernacular. Surely you don't pretend that he didn't intend to have his characters speak to each other in this way or design his spelling and sentence structure accordingly.
As for the genitive case, the English chose to take their cue from German's style using 'es' to mark genitive, dropping the 'e' and adding the apostrophe as was common in Saxon. It is sometimes difficult to parse whether the genitive means 'of' or 'for' and which noun it belongs to, clarified primarily by context and now denoting primarily possessives. English also has double genitives, though these are usually avoided for proper phrasing. Again, the change is most often linked with separation from French form and identification with Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) forebears rather than the older French and Italian overlords. Possibly having something to do with resistance to Christianity and Papal authority - which was also a good part of the historical conditions that led to this long identity crisis.
Despite the fact that all these things developed over time and generations, design is evident in every change and every development. Why you choose to pretend otherwise is a mystery I don't care to solve, though I suspect it has something to do with your ideological rejection of the idea that evolution - of anything, including uniquely human historical developments - could ever display discernible design. You probably think agriculture, government, architecture, religion, science, medicine and warfare are all devoid of design too. Go figure…
Zach to Bradford:
Of course they did. That's because the priests were the ones who formalized it, deployed it, and held it exclusive to themselves and their authoritative roles in ancient societies.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The question is whether the vowel shift occurring over several centuries was intentional. Did people intend to cause the language to change into a new form?
Social and geographic immigration would cause non-intentional changes to the language. The intent of imposing "proper English" would be conformity, not change over generations. Supposed speech impediments in the aristocracy and the desire to emulate them would also not be associated with any intention to reshape the language. Standardization is intended to slow the natural rate of change in language.
Each incremental step can be purposeful, but the global result inadvertent. Each couple decides to have children, but overpopulation is not the intent.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
All you have to do is follow your own logic. At some point an association was made between a word and table. Subsequent modifications are irrelevat to the initial association.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Zachriel:
The blog topic is alphabet design. The population blurb is a red herring.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Decisions were made to that effect. It may have been more than one person.
Intent is not a prerequisite to design.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Zachriel:
Tokens do nothing to explain the development of the alphabet. You're confusing a prior event in time with a causal connection.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Zach:
??? "Family Planning" is a very, very recent development, Zach. Birth control was exclusively the realm and responsibility of women since time immemorial, all the men ever wanted was exclusive access to sex (with some assurance that the children were theirs for inheritance and bride-price purposes). Sex is a lot older than human beings, and human beings do it just like other critters do it. Reproduction may or may not be the goal (it's usually just sex for the guys). Most of the time it's just a side-effect of sex.
Couples can decide to have children. They can decide not to have children. Or just the woman can make that decision, and traditionally did in more ancient societies. "Over" population is a subjective term (or was until recently), not a consideration and normally not the result. Having children doesn't cause overpopulation, limiting the natural boundaries to population growth causes overpopulation. We discussed this before when you talked about 'saving' millions of children in the Third World who die of malaria every year. When you do defeat that natural boundary on population growth, you've got no business blaming nature (having babies as a side-effect of having sex) for there being too many people.
You seem unwilling to admit that modern science and medicine are more responsible for the current overpopulation issue than individual couples having sex during their fertile years (as they are designed to do). The telling factoid is that people in the Third World out-produce rich folks by a large margin, and have historically done that to ensure that at least one of their 6 to 12 children lives long enough to carry genes forward and take care of them in their old age. If all 12 children survive (no smallpox! No polio! No malaria!) the family is that much poorer than it otherwise would have been with just a couple of children with reasonable life expectancies. Thereby also increasing poverty among the already poor, perpetuating that cause of suffering.
It's good to reduce suffering where we can. But to do that intelligently, we also have to impose means of replacing natural boundaries on population growth that what we defeat represents - with something designed. Which brings up human rights issues and issues of authoritarian impositions. China has an imposition policy in place to limit its population growth. Resulting in a sexual imbalance overall due to most people wanting their single child to be male rather than female. Could be an effective cure for male proclivities that have traditionally victimized the actual baby-makers (women), even if they don't have a celibate priesthood to take care of the excess.
Still, I doubt you'd claim that defeating smallpox, polio and malaria weren't the result of intelligent design, even if it's not nearly as intelligent as it should have been.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
hrun:
The involvement of an intelligence does not automatically signify design. But an alphabet (having properties that signify design) would not come into existence without an intelligent designer(s).
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Yes, but the question was how that association was made. In fact, the Latin word tablula means board (the usual word for table being mensa).
The example is relevant to the point.
design, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
intent, the act or fact of intending : purpose.
I even emphasized the point by calling it "purposeful intention". Have you decided your definition of design is no longer appropriate? Are you saying purpose is irrelevant to design?
I'm not confusing anything. I'm stating the findings of archaeologists based on physical evidence. I can point to the evidence, but I can't make you look.
The thread title is "Evolving Scientism".
As I am more than willing to consider design elements when appropriate, I'm not sure your point.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Zachriel:
There is an 'or' between the words purposeful and inventive. Inventiveness is found where no intellect is part of the causal chain. Nature evidences this. So too do individuals engaged in linguistic modifications. They can be inventive without having to take a holistic view of the language they are modifying. The inventiveness lies in linguistic changes. It does not require a purpose to transform Latin to Italian even if the cumulative effects of many changes led to that.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Bradford: Tokens do nothing to explain the development of the alphabet. You're confusing a prior event in time with a causal connection.
Your problem is the evidence is not for the generation of the alphabet. Thousands of years from now an archeologist might uncover 21st century subway tokens in Manhatten. A futuristic Zachriel would argue that the tokens led to the development of a computer language prevalent in the latter part of the 21st century. A futuristic Bradford will patiently point out the weakness of "evidence" for that conclusion.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I agree with this statement, and I agree that the ability to manipulate symbols is important to the development of the alphabet.
The alphabet did not suddenly appear de novo, but evolved from more primitive symbolic associations. The bit about "unhealthy emotional attachment to the idea of undirected change" is just rhetoric. I am more than willing to considered directed change when appropriate, and I have previously pointed to many examples of design with regards to language.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Zach:
Yes, it was sociologically intentional, just like American language and pronunciation was intentional, for the reasons I outlined per historical events. That languages "evolve" is uncontroversial, I just can't figure out why you don't consider uniquely human sociological developments - such as languages and writing - to be substantially different from your Neodarwinian model of biological evolution. Is nothing humans do reasonably to be considered design?
Languages Evolve in Rapid Bursts, Rather than Following a Steady Pattern -
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I had thought so, but apparently not.
It is substantially different, as noted on the previous thread. This is my basic claim:
Zachriel: This process is substantially different from biological evolution, but is still largely evolutionary in the sense that for most of the history of language, changes occurred without regard to the future course of language development, but through incremental changes over generations. In the case of Romance languages, the cultural isolation of the various groups after the fall of the Roman Empire led to divergent paths akin to allopatric speciation.
As I also mentioned before, in direct response to you, design elements are very common in modern languages; dictionaries, grammar orthodoxy, spelling conventions, jargon, slang, advertising, etc.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
You are using the term evolved so loosely that it ceases to retain any meaningful applicability. If you wish to contend the alphabet evolved you need to point to the alphabet that preceeded it and explain how humans changed it to its present form. But if you do that you provide evidence that humans designed the alphabet. A conundrum.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Okay, I'll repeat it for the third time.
Zachriel: This process is substantially different from biological evolution, but is still largely evolutionary in the sense that for most of the history of language, changes occurred without regard to the future course of language development, but through incremental changes over generations. In the case of Romance languages, the cultural isolation of the various groups after the fall of the Roman Empire led to divergent paths akin to allopatric speciation.
I have done that repeatedly. But instead of engaging the evidence, you have merely repeatedly rejected its relevance.
The alphabet is a symbolic association that evolved from more primitive symbolic associations that were not yet an alphabet. The transition occurred in increments without regard to the creation of an eventual alphabet. What did you think happened?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Zach:
Zach, do some homework. The monogenesis theory lost favor in the 1960s and has been replaced with a more accurate theory (and some subs) per the development of languages and writing when the Mayan script was deciphered in the '70s, representing an unarguable independent development of a phonetic script in the New World with little to no evidence of accountancy as precursor. What is wrong with the monogenesis theory is described quite clearly in the 'origins' section of Ancient Scripts -
And the conclusion from this criticism of the Darwin/Eurocentric (Monogenesis) view of writing? The modern consensus:
Here is another good overview.
Why do you ignore the link and citation I gave you per the specific political designs for "rapid burst" changes in languages? Will you still hold to monogenesis of writing even though it is known to be polygenic (as are languages), and that the different types of writing systems are not more or less 'evolved' for their uses in any of the systems developed (originally by priestly classes or specific scholars [Chinese])?
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
IOW, you can't account for all that exists - in life and in human intelligent design - by appeal to Charlie Darwin. Get over it.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
This type of evolution lacks a mechanism. The agent for change is intelligence that effects linguistic changes over time and in doing so redesigns languages.
The changes you refer to are more accurately assessed as conceptual changes. You are pegging changes to preceeding symbolic associations. While it is true that all human endeavors build on preceeding accomplishments innovations on prior knowledge can take conceptual leaps generated by human creativity accounting for actual change. This means present symbolism is not necessarily a modified version of what preceeded it. It may be a radical innovation bearing little resemblance to what preceeded it because the idea resulted from imagination rather than a conceptually revised template of existing symbolism.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
And again the question arises: Can a process where intelligence was involved by anything other than 'design'?
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I am not citing monogenesis theory, but Denise Schmandt-Besserat who didn't publish her theory until 1992. I thought it was clear in context, but if there was confusion, I am referring the origin of Mesopotamian scripts. Thank you for your other information, though.
As I already mentioned several times, language evolution and biological evolution are substantially different.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The mechanism is the individual activities of people, of course, trying to find solutions to their immediate problems, but without regard to some far distant vision of how the language is to develop. In the case of tokens, they were just trying to find a better way to keep track of their sheep.
A lot of this discussion, just like much of Intelligent Design, is apparently just semantics.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
hrun: And again the question arises: Can a process where intelligence was involved by anything other than 'design'?
http://telicthoughts.com/evolv...
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Still fits a definition of design- an inventive arrangement of parts.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
This is sort of off-topic, but the skeptics' denunciation of ID, as exhibited by the likes of the Wikipedia article on ID, I would like to see someone come up with a new term for what amounts to "raw ID", ID without any particular association with the Discovery Institute, et al. I'm a little tired of the broad brush that "ID" opponents are using with respect to motives and religious organizational affiliations.
MikeGene and his fellow travellers, as several participants here, including myself, who accept "evolution", while open to intelligent agency at various points in the process, are simply not the kind of folk that the Wikipedia article, and those like it, seems to describe. I favor the term "intelligent evolution."
Also, it seems like someone needs to create an flatly secular organization devoted to intelligent evolution.
Any thoughts?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Zechriel: "Each incremental step can be purposeful, but the global result inadvertent. Each couple decides to have children, but overpopulation is not the intent."
This reminds me of how when Thomas Edison invented the phonograph, he thought it's main application would be in language instruction. He did not take seriously the idea of distributing music with such recordings.
Boy was he wrong.
But perhaps computers are a better analogy of stepwise accumulation of sophistication. Long ago somebody came up with the idea of counting using their fingers. Somebody else started using tokens instead of fingers. Somebody then came along with the idea of using powers of 10 for speed and efficiency. And so on. The guy who started counting on his fingers couldn't imagine modern computers. But his step was essential. And it involved insight at every step, from first to last.
Perhaps the designer(s) of life, if there are any, did not have the precise details of the goal in mind when they started, but if there was insight at every step, i.e, the proper variation at important points in the environment, or "context", then it might have been sufficient towards more a general goal. (Such as a race of rational beings, with insight and the capacity to investigate the universe using these powers.) Those who understand process control theory will understand what I'm talking about here.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Zachriel: "This process is substantially different from biological evolution, but is still largely evolutionary in the sense that for most of the history of language, changes occurred without regard to the future course of language development, but through incremental changes over generations"
One stark example to the contrary is the development of the Kana character set by the Japanese, which includes Hirigana and Katakana. Chinese languages (e.g, Cantonese, Mandarin) have relatively simple grammars compared to most languages in the world. When literally translated into English they sound almost like "pidgeon English", which is why, historically, Chinese immigrants who learn English as adults tend to, in fact, speak "pidgeon English."
On the other hand, the Japanese language has rich and complex grammar. (Contrary to popular misconception, Japanese is utterly unrelated to the Chinese dialects, Although there has been some word borrowing down through the centuries in both directions, as would be expected. Chinese and Japanese Asians may look alike to Westerners, but the Japanese and Chinese languages are as different as Chinese and English.)
At any rate, a few centuries ago the Japanese adopted and modified the Chinese Kanji non-phonetic ideograms. Since Japanese has many grammatical "devices" (such as postpositions, verb tenses, etc), and Chinese has no such analog to these, the Japanese invented the Kana set as a way to phonetically spell out anything not present in the Chinese Kanji, including grammatical devices, foreign words and names, or any other word that does not have an applicable Kanji. (The hirigana set is very Kanji looking and is the set normally used, and the Katakana set is more blocky looking, typically used for foreign words and for grabbing attention, like English writers use bold or italic fonts.)
Not really germane to the topic, but what the heck.
Ja mata
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
design, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
Apparently your definition of design includes non-purposeful invention. Please define 'inventive'.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Zachriel, this is a strange comment coming from you. You've been maintaining that changes are incidental, gradual and without an end goal in mind. That's a prescription for local inventiveness having global effects.
inventive: Adept or skillful at inventing; creative.
BTW, does Nature design?
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Computers are designed. The original finger-counter (if such an individual existed) could be said to have designed finger-counting methodology. We would not say the original finger-counter designed computers. We would say that counting systems have evolved over time. It's just semantics, but this is a blog devoted to discussions of Intelligent Design, so valid understanding of these basic concepts does seem relevant.
In the case of the origin of the alphabet, the evidence indicates it evolved from simpler symbolic systems. Tokens to impressions to pictograms to phonetics occurred gradually over many centuries. Perhaps some one person may have designed a new phonogram, but that singular stroke of genius doesn't constitute the design of a phonetic alphabet. The alphabet crept into the culture, bit by bit.
You could define the term 'design' broadly, but the origin of the alphabet is more properly described as evolution or even development.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
hrun asks:
To see how far nullasalus, for one, is willing to stretch the meaning of 'design', see my comment below (copied from the other thread):
After rereading the thread, I realize that I haven't fully credited the sublime ridiculousness of nullasalus's position.
He writes:
Ponder that. In this scenario, neither general coins a single word, alters a single pronunciation, or invents a single grammatical structure. Between them, they might not even understand a single word of their enemy's language. Yet nullasalus is unwilling to say that they didn't design the new language. "I don't think a decisive 'no' has much grounding," he says.
Wow.
Comment by valerie — February 9, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Bradford to Zach:
This is a salient observation, Bradford. It seems that in order to refute the idea that intelligent humans intelligently design their linguistic conventions and symbolic formalities for conveying ideas and concepts through generational time, one is left with nothing but the baseless assertion that languages and writing cannot be intelligently designed! What a pointless, self-defeating position!
The subject of human language and writing systems is highly illustrative of intelligently designed, guided evolution. Writing specifically ALLOWS us to build on knowledge gathered by previous generations so we don't have to start all over every generation. If we're being particularly xenophobic this generation we can always change our vowels and tongue placement to make our speech unintelligible to those we fear. If we're not being xenophobic, we can borrow words, concepts (and the knowledge accumulated) one system to another wholesale. And as Kornbelt points out, pieces-parts of writing systems as well even if they are a different type that we've used previously, if doing so enhances our general purposes.
That's a pretty darned good analogy to a secular view of ID evolution in biology, even of front-loading in that humans (of all critters) have the innate capacity for complex language in our vocalization structures, for writing in our ability for hand-eye fine motor control, and syntax in our brain wiring. As well as the intelligence to use all these things for our own progressive and social 'evolution', increasing knowledge and abilities to communicate ideas across wide audiences effectively.
Why the heck would any critic wish to diminish that to the level of RM-NS "It Just Happens, That's All" garbage? I honestly don't get it.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
That is a reasonable restatement of my expressed view. That remains whether you want assign the appelation 'design' to such a process or not. Most people would not use the word 'design' to refer to unintended global effects such as over-population, traffic jams, etc. We even make a distinction between cities which are designed and those which are not.
Not a very particularly useful definition.
The word 'design' can be used (loosely) to describe a tree or a cloud. But I would assume you are attempting to be more precise (and perhaps relevant) in your terminology. Clouds can even be said (loosely) to be inventive.
Try to apply your definition to a city. Some cities are considered designed. Some are not.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Your analogies amount to obfuscation. Alphabets entail an act of the intellect which aligns letters to sounds and then sequences them into words. That involves intent as well.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Joy: "The subject of human language and writing systems is highly illustrative of intelligently designed, guided evolution."
Well put. The same could be said of airplanes, automobiles, computers, communications technologies, medical and surgical technologies, and so on.
Humans may not know the state of art at any time in the future, but the common theme is better, faster, easier, healthier.
Guided incremental evolution. What a concept.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
zechriel: "We would say that counting systems have evolved over time."
Right. Guided evolution by intelligent agency oriented toward easier, better, faster, stronger, healthier. Of course, mistakes and blunders occur, but overall the evolution has been pretty impressive, don't you think?
I wonder if some intelligent process exists at the level of cells that drove biological entities to where they are now.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Bradford to Zach:
Very true. The invention of the alphabet most likely involved a series of related events wherein creative thoughts were acted upon to associate symbols to sounds and allow those same symbols to be used in words. Given that the alphabet's purpose is to allow for written communication it requires much effort to even try to conceive of historic events that would have produced an alphabet without design. The letters themselves must have been invented at some point. If they were mere revisions of precusor letters then precursors would have been invented at some point.
The whole issue calls into question the intellectual integrity of critics. Given the obvious need to invent symbols and the clear absence of evidence of relevant historic events, it takes gall to assert that the process that generated the alphabet was one devoid of design.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Bradford, I see you once again neglected a very reasonable request which might help throw light on your understanding and use of the term 'design'.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Finally.
Quite an acute observation. Though the overall evolution of counting systems was not designed"”nor even foreseen"”we can say that along each step of the way the mechanism was the incremental improvement in the efficiency and accuracy of counting. From a variety of evidences, we know this mechanism was the genius and imagination of the human species.
Now, I wonder if anyone has observed a biological mechanism that can lead to incrementally more efficient reproductive success?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Zach:
Sure. Human intelligent design. Of course, that - like biological evolution - to can be rapid and 'explosive' rather than incremental. Sort of like punctuations in the equilibrium.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Zechriel: "Now, I wonder if anyone has observed a biological mechanism that can lead to incrementally more efficient reproductive success?"
Ah. That is the question, isn't it. The answer is: partly. We know for certain that selection weeds out unfitting entities from the environmental context. We can empirically observe this in operation at all levels of biological life. And we can empirically observe that some "random" variations lead to minor selective advantage. No doubt that this works at very small scales. We can see it in action. But does that source of variation provide the right kind of change against selection that can scale "all the way up" to novel cells, tissues, organs and body plans? That's the big question. So far, for me personally, there is no justification for assuming that it does in any given case simply because we have no empirical evidence that it ever has occurred in any case. Maybe it does. But maybe it doesn't. So far I'm agnostic. It's a very intriguing question for an engineer interested in biology.
The bottom line is, the information that we lack are the logical pathways. Mutation rates are of no use here because they do not address the pathways, i.e, the initial conditions, and the "truth table". Consider a Rubic's Cube. For any given initial state, there are infinite pathways that can occur to the solution, and there is the shortest path. If I secretly rearrange the stickers so the solution is impossible, no amount of turning and twisting is ever going to arrive at the solution (although it might be fun to watch someone try.) There are simply no pathways from the initial state to the goal.
At present, we do not have enough information to know if the logical pathways exist without intelligent insight overriding the system.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
We can directly observe mechanisms that work many times faster than the historical record requires.
Let's limit ourselves to just the common descent of placentals. Is there any specific barrier to the evolution of mice and elephants from their common ancestor?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
zechriel: "We can directly observe mechanisms that work many times faster than the historical record requires."
That's a meaningless statement unless there are known logical pathways from initial conditions to the result.
If I hook a random generator with known properties to a computerized Rubic's Cube, I can compute how long it will take to get from an initial state to the goal. If I rearrange the colors on the cube so that the normal Rubic's goal is not possible (i.e, no possibility of uniform colors on all sides), no amount of random spins will ever reach the normal goal. The pathways have been rendered impossible.
What makes you think logical pathways exists that would allow observed mechanisms to generate novel cells types, tissue types, organs or body plans?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Incremental adaptation has been identified for all sorts of transitions. You can't just sweep it away. You have to look at the data. If Eutheria is too large, try just Equidae.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Zachriel: "Incremental adaptation has been identified for all sorts of transitions. You can't just sweep it away. "
Indeed. But I thought it was the cause not the effect that we're discussing. Moreover, I limited the scope to novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
"Is there any specific barrier to the evolution of mice and elephants from their common ancestor?"
Not enough information is available for anyone to know to what degree, if any, it occurred via stochastic processes without intelligent insight involved.
What you're asking is kind of like asking if there is any known barrier from an initial scrambled state of a Rubic's Cube to a uniform color state from a mere casual glance without analyzing the nature of the system and it's possible states.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Zechriel,
I need to ask again, slightly amended:
What makes you think logical pathways exists that would allow observed mechanisms to generate novel cells types, tissue types, organs or body plans without intelligent agency involved?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
You seem to think that just saying something constitutes an argument. Variation and selection are both subject to empirical investigation.
We know the differences between various species of Equidae, we have transitional fossils, and we know what sorts of variation to expect within a population (e.g., the standard deviation of weight is on the order of e^0.15).
Again, we have to establish the limits of what we do know.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
My interest lies primarily at the level of novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans, as I clearly have indicated. The entities you have cited are constructed of cells, organs, tissues, and have particular body plans. Are you acknowledging that you have no useful information for me regarding the origin of novel cells types, tissue types, organs and body plans?
One more try: What makes you think logical pathways exist that would allow observed mechanisms to generate novel cells types, tissue types, organs or body plans without intelligent agency involved?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
That evidence begins with other well-established biological facts, including common descent. By ignoring established facts about evolution, it appears you really don't want to know the answer.
In fact, we do know a lot about natural variation in mammals, and we know the relationship between variation and selection. Indeed, the natural evolution and divergence of Eutheria is a strongly supported area of biology as atested by the vast majority of specialists in the field.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Right. A city with a map of itself divided into zones labeled A,B,C… and a convention mapping A to school districts, B to high rise apartments, C to retail stores, D to manufacturing… would be evidence of a city with a zoning board design already planned out. Symbolism is a clue that design might be present. Design and detection of it is a rational endeavor.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Moderation help, please.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Except you didn't answer the query. Some cities are considered designed (most modern cities), and some are not (many Medieval cities in Europe). What is the nature of that distinction?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Those who so consider the distinction are guided by the process by which the cities were established. Modern cities are regulated. The manner of settlement is planned out like the development of an organism through homeobox genes. They are centrally planned. Apparently no central planning determined the outlay of old cities although an accumulation of individual decisions did.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Zach:
Oh, I dunno. Calculus seems like a "rapid burst" rather than a mere increment toward efficient counting. The equations of relativity and QM are a bit quantum leap-like too (pun intended), all things considered.
RM-NS gradualism has increasingly come under challenge as new understanding is gained. As the evolution of languages occurs in rapid bursts rather than steady, gradual steps, many biologists now believe that biological evolution occurs in this way as well.
Again, here is the link.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Joy:
Irregular bursts of progress would not be at all surprising. We're not talking about a physical process but a process determined by human minds. Those minds are influenced by historic circumstances and cultural influences in addition to the vissicitudes of birth which sometimes distribute genius unequally. The incremental paradigm borrowed from biology is not the best fit.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 12:08 am
February 10th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Zachriel,
You've given him no reason to think there is any logical or rational connection between what you are claiming as evidence and the question he is asking. He's not ignoring any "established facts about evolution." (By the way, what facts did you present?)
So you need to argue, whether by extrapolation or analogy or inference or whatever, that the facts that you are talking about can be applied to the things he is talking about, whether or not any direct evidence exists for what he is asking for.
Comment by Mung — February 10, 2008 @ 12:46 am
February 10th, 2008 at 9:26 am
So, the outlay of old cities were not designed, even though they were the result of the individual decisions of intelligent agents, each designing some small part of the city to suit their own needs. Surely, you can see why people would be confused by your use of the term 'design' when we don't even apply it to cities in some cases.
You might try to find another way to label your concept, or at least use scare-quotes.
It's appropriate that you point "rapid bursts". That's how such networks of interactions are expected to evolve: minor changes happen frequently, major changes happen infrequently, revolutionary changes happen very rarely. Indeed, a scale-free structure is a signal of an evolutionary process.
As to whether calculus was incremental or not depends on the scale of observation. The general pace of advance has increased in modern times, so then has the increment; and we would probably want to consider a fractal scale. I don't want to overstate the idea, though, as it wasn't meant as a complete history, but just as a first-order illustration.
Similarly, improvement in stages of reproductive success can lead to profound ordering over time.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 9:26 am
February 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
You can't ask for "what makes me think" something, and then ignore the argument. I will present the argument in stages, and each stage has to be examined and found acceptable before proceeding. That's how an argument is built. If kornbelt888 doesn't think dogs evolved from wolves, then I will marshall that evidence. Having established that, we can proceed to other taxa such as Equidae, establish the limits of Common Descent, and examine the various mechanisms involved.
That the rate of observed evolution is much faster than the fastest transitions inferred from the historical record. This has been confirmed by a variety of methodologies, but is certainly open to falsification. I also referred to Common Descent, the existence of fossil species of Equidae, the amount of variation expected within mammalian populations, and the known relationship between variation and evolutionary rates. I would be happy to provide additional detail as required to advance the argument.
Common Descent is an intrinsic component of the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, it is intrinsic to kornbelt888's question. The observed mechanisms of evolutionary change are an intrinsic component of the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, they are intrinsic to kornbelt888's question.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 9:46 am
February 10th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Those are your words not mine. The old cities are very much a product of design. In fact there is a parallel to science. Reductionism allows for arising of designed patterns from more basic natural laws. No planning involved but designed outcomes nonetheless.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 10:28 am
February 10th, 2008 at 10:35 am
There's no real process. It's a mirage. What we actually witness are a series of intellectual breakthroughs occurring in separate minds of many distinct individuals. They are a chain of conceptual novelties. The action occurs in minds. The physical symbols are but mere manifestations of thought.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 10:35 am
February 10th, 2008 at 10:41 am
The usage is common. We refer to some cities as designed and other cities as organic. The layouts are neither purposeful nor inventive. Instead, they are haphazard and ad hoc.
So not only are archaeologists wrong about the origin of writing, but architectural historians can't even accurately describe the layout of Medieval cities.
Well, it apparently depends on what's found inside those scare-quotes.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 10:41 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Cities have common denominators- common components that mark them as cities. That's the design feature. Causality can originate top down (modern cities) or bottoms up (older ones).
You are placing your own spin on cherry picked archeologists. You have not placed in evidence a consensus that the alphabet was not designed.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:16 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I think you mean 'designed'. Some city layouts are haphazard and ad hoc, not purposeful and inventive. Hence the layouts are not 'designed'.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 11:28 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Those homes on the east side of town exemplify both inventiveness and purpose and the government building in the center the same. The church at the north end was purposely built as were the connecting roads. There may have been no central plan but then again the patterns of snowflakes are not centrally planned either.
Comment by