And what "like mind’ would that be, exactly? My first post in reference to anything you have said here was simply to explain what you were getting at (that is, in case, you missed it, I agreed with your intent, if not your method), and the second was to state that I did not agree with your usage of “evolution” in context.
You are free use whatever definitions you like; just realize that you’ve got a much better chance of people comprehending you if you use established ones. Getting this thread to multiple pages because people have to keep asking for clarification isn’t something I would strive for, personally.
Dear Darwin’s Finch, I’m not stupid. I don’t think.
I was, at one time, measured to be the smartest guy in the southeast. Anyway, I can recognize the neat substance of your remarks.
I also know the difference between plain folk and pretentious folk, that is, those who care only about their own static ideas about the world, and those like we, who care only about understanding the world as it is, and as it was, and as it will someday be.
*What is a reasonable definition of the word? ~ Diogenes the Cynic
Uh, Diogenes, abritrary and reason are soulmates. Your absolutes suck!
“I was, at one time, measured to be the smartest guy in the southeast.” ~ milum*
Definitions, by dictionary.com
Remember, we’re using the scientific term, not the word as used in common speech. These are, in fact, not the most rigorous definition, but they are good for a close first approximation.
Evolve: 2: Biology. To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
Evolution: 3: Biology. a: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
B: The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Only living things evolve.
As far as raw intelligence goes, Milum, I’m pretty sure I’m not the smartest cookie in the jar on here, and I’ve got an IQ which is literally unmeasurable. That is, when I took standard IQ tests back in school, the results were beyond the margin of error, varying wildly from 160 to 200+. I severely doubt that I have an IQ of 200, I simply happened to test well on that day, and the test was inaccurate at that level. Big deal. This discussion is not about intelligence. It’s about ideas and logic. It does not take genius to explain an idea. It takes clearheaded thinking. It may take genius to come up with a concept, but unless you can explain it to others, it is, frankly, useless.
Can you explain, using words as found in the english language, and with definitions of any odd terms you might find handy, your idea? Are you familiar with the Gaia hypothesis? Do you understand the difference between the ‘life cycle’ of an inanimate object and the same for a living being?
Saying only living things evolve is like saying only living things grow. It’s taking a subdefinition of a word and mistaking it for the whole definition.
Let’s take a look at the entire dictionary.com definiton, eh?
Yes, dear heart, but we’re only using the definition as used by scientists. The jargon definition, not the common one. Otherwise I could define evolution as:
5: Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
And that’s hardly useful, is it? It’s just like saying “Theory” means “guess”. You have to use the proper definition… and note that, in fact, Evolve sub 2 is clearly a ‘reasonable definition of the word’, to be speaking about the same thing. Or are you going to say that a revolutionary activist is the same thing as the long-wave end of the visible spectrum?
Only living things are subject to evolution, which is the change in genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
If you can find me a nonliving organism that has a genetic composition, changes as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and results in the development of new species, I’d be fascinated.
I would again disagree. As I mentioned previously, anything which exhibits the three criteria of replication, mutation, and differential survivability can be said to evolve. In a recent issue of Nature, “digital organisms” were used to model the evolution of complex features*. These “organisms” were simple programs - lines of code - and were by no means alive. But, they were still able to replicate themselves, mutate specific lines of code in a random fashion, and based on the function of the resulting code, were able to “pass on” their code to the next generation (or not, as the case may be).
Granted, crystalline structures and such do not evolve. But evolution, even in the sense in which it applies to biological evolution, is not limited to biological entities.
*Lenski, R., Ofria, C., Pennock, R., Adami, C. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature423, 139-144 (2003)
Bah. Confuse the issue with facts. You are, in fact, correct and I was thinking about this very point about two seconds after I pressed submit. One could make the comment that they are simulations of evolution, and not evolving themselves, in the same way a model of an airplane is not an airplane. But I think it would be incorrect to do so. And yet, I can not think of an example other than that. Still, would you not consider those digital organisms simulated life? They consume clock cycles, reproduce, and so forth. There is, of course, the added advantage of not being physical, and able to subject themselves to lamarckian evolutionary processes.
Still, you are right, there are certain long-standing and well known computer programming techniques, from ancient Core Wars to modern genetic algorithyms that mimic or actually exhibit evolutionary processes. They are no more alive than a virus, I suppose.
