Would any of you drive a car made by Darwin's ideas?

[professor]

You guys seem to have missed the foundation of Darwin's theory.
That RANDOM changes occured over time.
Random means "Chance" and chance is the opposite of choice.
Chance is having no intellegence added.
The development of all tech. is the result of applied intellegence.
Even the Pinto.
You can call development that we do "Evolution" but that is not what darwin proposed.

[JuliaL]

Every one of your respsonses (wether you realize it or not) included intellegence having been added to the "evolutionary development" of each item. However, the Darwinian scheme has no such provision.

What is this "intelligence" stuff that you mention? Other than ascribing your own human motives, how do you show that there is intention in anything? Perhaps your car's absolute purpose is to keep your vegetables cold and it is simply failing miserably at its divinely inspired destiny.

[Alex K]

You guys seem to have missed the foundation of Darwin's theory.
That RANDOM changes occured over time.
Random means "Chance" and chance is the opposite of choice.
Chance is having no intellegence added.
The development of all tech. is the result of applied intellegence.
Even the Pinto.
You can call development that we do "Evolution" but that is not what darwin proposed.

It's a bit embarassing for you to lecture us like this when such obvious gaps in your understanding are showing.
The important part of (neo)darwinian evolution which you don't seem to grasp is that, while mutations may be random, the selection process does not treat these mutations randomly, but favors those which are more suitable for procreation. Thus, information from the environment enters the genome. This process can be used in engineering. It's basically a optimized version of trial and error.

[JuliaL]

You guys seem to have missed the foundation of Darwin's theory.
That RANDOM changes occured over time.
Random means "Chance" and chance is the opposite of choice.
Chance is having no intellegence added.
The development of all tech. is the result of applied intellegence.
Even the Pinto.
You can call development that we do "Evolution" but that is not what darwin proposed.

You seem to have missed a key point in Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Natural selection is RANDOM in the same way that gravity is RANDOM. In my neck of the woods things tend to always fall down, not in some RANDOM direction and the individuals who survive and prosper through differential reproduction survive and prosper.

[max-greece]

You guys seem to have missed the foundation of Darwin's theory.
That RANDOM changes occured over time.
Random means "Chance" and chance is the opposite of choice.
Chance is having no intellegence added.
The development of all tech. is the result of applied intellegence.
Even the Pinto.
You can call development that we do "Evolution" but that is not what darwin proposed.

Actually no.

Random chance event happen all the time but whether they are beneficial to the organism is anything but chance. Non-beneficial change stops at the afflicted individual, or within a couple of generations.

Beneficial change, however, increases the chances of mating success for the individual allowing them to pass their genes on to the next generation allowing a species to slowly change and adapt to its environment.

What you are (wilfully?) additionally ignoring is time. Evolution is a drawn out process happening over millennia. Things like Car design happen over a matter of a few years.

In those circumstances intelligence is required to take the place of evolutionary change though natural selection.

As you are an engineer please advise as to any and all products you have worked on so I know which ones to avoid.

Many thanks

[Minimalist]

Now, who is up for owning a Darwinmobile?

If you are really as stupid as this makes you sound I sure as fuck would not ride in any machine that you built.

[Tonus]

You guys seem to have missed the foundation of Darwin's theory.
That RANDOM changes occured over time.

And those organisms whose changes made them less likely to survive and breed died off, while those whose changes made them more likely to survive and breed continued to evolve. This is what is called natural selection or survival of the fittest. In a man-made product like a car, this process is guided intelligently and therefore moves forward in a faster and more efficient manner. In nature, it moves slowly and inefficiently and you wind up with a very long list of extinct organisms, such that only a tiny fraction of the species that have ever existed at any time exist today.

[*Deidre*]

Machines are designed and constructed by human beings. Machines don't adapt, morph or mutate. lol For any changes to occur in a machine, it requires human engineering and construction.

Ah, grasshopper--I see what you are doing here lol Trying to compare a human designer/engineer of a car to the concept of "Intelligent Design"?

[Esquilax]

You guys seem to have missed the foundation of Darwin's theory.
That RANDOM changes occured over time.
Random means "Chance" and chance is the opposite of choice.
Chance is having no intellegence added.
The development of all tech. is the result of applied intellegence.
Even the Pinto.
You can call development that we do "Evolution" but that is not what darwin proposed.

So, to be clear, you began this conversation without allowing yourself to accept any evidence we presented, because people would still be involved? Could you be any more dishonest?

As has been pointed out to you more than once now, the changes made in the evolutionary algorithms I linked you to are random, they're just simulated rather than appearing at the speed of individual generations. All that happens after is that the selection pressures- which are not random even in nature- are inputted by people, whereas in nature they would be a matter of the environment and surrounding context of the organism in question. So, even taking your rather ludicrous oversimplification into account, what I showed you still passes.

You know, I'm no expert at argumentation or anything, but I think this unorthodox method of yours, where you display with every word you say that you know nothing of what you're debating, and haven't bothered to so much as look over the information given you by your opponents, isn't working out.

Perhaps you should try debating from a position of knowledge, rather than continuing to show us how proud you are of your profound ignorance?

[Alex K]

Ok, that should take care of professor's problem. What do we discuss next?