Evolution without intelligence?

[bobhikes]

Everyone has heard of the watch analogy.

I purpose a simpler one. My one year old son can stack 3 square blocks using his basic intelligence. Can someone explain how random actions without intelligence guiding them can assemble 3 blocks in a stack. It does not have to be perfect but as long as it is balanced by random actions you win.

The building blocks of life are much more complicated to stack and improper stacking would end life.

Looking forward to an answer. Thanks.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ignoring the fact that the "building blocks of life" are self-assembling is the flaw in both the watchmaker analogy and your childish analogy.

 

[Quintessence]

The way I interpret this is a way of demonstrating that all matter/energy has its own "intelligence" by virtue of its intrinsic nature/essence. The intrinsic essence of the blocks allow certain things to be done with them but not other things. I realize this is a loose definition of intelligence, but the creation of things is guided by itself and limits of the essence of things themselves. Self-assembling, to borrow a phrase Gjallahorn threw out there. It's not really random. In a universe of causes-effects, I'm not particularly convinced there is such a thing as true randomness.

 

[Storm]

The way I interpret this is a way of demonstrating that all matter/energy has its own "intelligence" by virtue of its intrinsic nature/essence. The intrinsic essence of the blocks allow certain things to be done with them but not other things. I realize this is a loose definition of intelligence, but the creation of things is guided by itself and limits of the essence of things themselves. Self-assembling, to borrow a phrase Gjallahorn threw out there. It's not really random. In a universe of causes-effects, I'm not particularly convinced there is such a thing as true randomness.

Right there with ya. Though I don't call it 'intelligence.' That implies (to me!) a certain level of complexity which the basic elements of Life, the Universe, and Everything lack. That's what makes them the "basic elements" in the first place.

 

[HonestJoe]

Can someone explain how random actions without intelligence guiding them can assemble 3 blocks in a stack.

Waterflow, glaciers or eathquakes can move rocks (or blocks) and they could perfectly easily happen to settle in a stack, especially if there is a dip or hole for them to fall in to. Natural events and processes often create specific patterns (or things we recognise as patterns).

There's no reason to assume similar things are impossible at the molecular or cellular level, which would be required for the some hypotheses regarding development of early life.

 

[freethinker44]

The building blocks of life are much more complicated to stack and improper stacking would end life.

Good thing evolution isn't random then, huh?

 

[painted wolf]

Naturally occurring balancing boulders are pretty common.

This one and many many others are common in Zimbabwe.

One from Spain

There are in fact several ways for this to happen naturally from erosion by wind and water to glacial movement.

The chemical reactions that produce molecules are just as natural.

wa:do

 

[Looncall]

Naturally occurring balancing boulders are pretty common.

This one and many many others are common in Zimbabwe.

One from Spain

There are in fact several ways for this to happen naturally from erosion by wind and water to glacial movement.

The chemical reactions that produce molecules are just as natural.

wa:do

A good point, and very cool pictures. Thanks.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can someone explain how random actions without intelligence guiding them can assemble 3 blocks in a stack. It does not have to be perfect but as long as it is balanced by random actions you win.

That's hard to do unless you define "random" as you understand the term and are using it. Additionally, as most definitions would preclude evolutionary mechanisms, why must it be "random"?

The building blocks of life are much more complicated to stack and improper stacking would end life.

Mutations often do end life. So do maladaptive traits. The vast majority of species which at one point existed are extinct.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Looking forward to an answer.

Happy?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Naturally occurring balancing boulders are pretty common.

This one and many many others are common in Zimbabwe.

One from Spain

There are in fact several ways for this to happen naturally from erosion by wind and water to glacial movement.

The chemical reactions that produce molecules are just as natural.

wa:do

Natural!!?? Do you have any idea how long it took me to stack those? Un-freaking-believable.

 

[PolyHedral]

Everyone has heard of the watch analogy.

I purpose a simpler one. My one year old son can stack 3 square blocks using his basic intelligence. Can someone explain how random actions without intelligence guiding them can assemble 3 blocks in a stack. It does not have to be perfect but as long as it is balanced by random actions you win.

The building blocks of life are much more complicated to stack and improper stacking would end life.

Looking forward to an answer. Thanks.

The blocks are magnetic.

 

[idav]

Naturally occurring balancing boulders are pretty common.

This one and many many others are common in Zimbabwe.

One from Spain

There are in fact several ways for this to happen naturally from erosion by wind and water to glacial movement.

The chemical reactions that produce molecules are just as natural.

wa:do

Cool, intelligent rocks!

 

[Dubio]

I read a Creationists assertion that symmetry is evidence of a creator. If you look at the human body, you have beautiful symmetry, i.e. placement of the eyes, etc..

What explains symmetry in humans, animals, plants, etc. from an evolutionary standpoint or whatever standpoint?

 

[johnhanks]

I read a Creationists assertion that symmetry is evidence of a creator. If you look at the human body, you have beautiful symmetry, i.e. placement of the eyes, etc..

What explains symmetry in humans, animals, plants, etc. from an evolutionary standpoint or whatever standpoint?

Symmetry comes in various modes, but you seem to be talking about bilateral symmetry. In the first animals to have a front end and a back end and a specific direction to move in, symmetry was simpler to organise than non-symmetry: specify the structure of one side of the body, and hey presto you've also specified the other! Significant asymmetry might also have been an impediment to locomotion.
The same argument applies to the radial symmetry of flowers and animals like cnidarians: symmetry doesn't require, as you seem to suggest, the accessing of more information - by repeating a simple set of instructions in a systematic way, it means you can develop a larger and more complex structure with less.

 

[painted wolf]

I read a Creationists assertion that symmetry is evidence of a creator. If you look at the human body, you have beautiful symmetry, i.e. placement of the eyes, etc..

What explains symmetry in humans, animals, plants, etc. from an evolutionary standpoint or whatever standpoint?

Genetics. Evolution is a path of least resistance and symmetry is a lazy way of making a whole critter.

wa:do

 

[crocusj]

I read a Creationists assertion that symmetry is evidence of a creator. If you look at the human body, you have beautiful symmetry, i.e. placement of the eyes, etc..

What explains symmetry in humans, animals, plants, etc. from an evolutionary standpoint or whatever standpoint?

This is, yet again, one of those self defeating creationists arguments in that not all animals are symmetrical. Flatfish, for example, are born symmetrical but become asymmetric as they mature. These fish also have a transitional fossil ancestor Amphistium which is an incomplete version of the modern fish (what good half an eye, indeed) making it clear that they were not "created" asymmetric but adapted through natural selection. Evolution, therefore, does not have to follow this supposedly "created" symmetry, it goes where it goes.

 

[secret2]

I read a Creationists assertion that symmetry is evidence of a creator. If you look at the human body, you have beautiful symmetry, i.e. placement of the eyes, etc..

What explains symmetry in humans, animals, plants, etc. from an evolutionary standpoint or whatever standpoint?

Others have already provided good explanations above. Your argument also suffers from another common creationist bias: placing too much emphasis on phenotypic traits that can be observed by our bare eyes. Hence body symmetry. What about the individual body parts? For example my femur is by no means symmetrical. And what about internal organs? individual cells?

 

[Dubio]

Others have already provided good explanations above. Your argument also suffers from another common creationist bias: placing too much emphasis on phenotypic traits that can be observed by our bare eyes. Hence body symmetry. What about the individual body parts? For example my femur is by no means symmetrical. And what about internal organs? individual cells?

My post was not an argument. Sorry for not making it clearer. I was looking for a good answer I could give a creationist if he or she uses the symmetry thing in their argument.

 

[fantome profane]

My post was not an argument. Sorry for not making it clearer. I was looking for a good answer I could give a creationist if he or she uses the symmetry thing in their argument.

You could respond by telling them when it comes to scientific evidence for Creationism there is:

no trace not one carton.​