Culture Darwinism News

“Evolution of evolvability”… Huh?

Spread the love

Further to Is “evolution” a person? Can it “learn”? (Well, that would sure explain “apparently intelligent designs.” If evolution can “learn,” it is a consciousness of some kind.)

But Darwin boffins were making the claim. Anway, philospher and photographer Laszlo Bencze comments on their phrase, in the title above:

“The evolution of evolvability” is the single most striking phrase in the article that Denyse excerpts. Like wow. With a phrase like that you have just answered all conceivable doubts about Darwinism. It’s the master key which opens every dank cell in Darwin’s dungeon. It rolls off the tongue like a line from a Shakespeare sonnet. It’s got assonance. It’s a beautiful thing. Maybe some crabby old ID critics will damn it for being a perfect vacuity when it comes to meaning. But they just don’t appreciate the immense value of thought which is impervious to deconstruction by virtue of being meaningless.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Yeh. We take the fun out of everything.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to ““Evolution of evolvability”… Huh?

  1. 1
    bFast says:

    “If evolution can “learn,” it is a consciousness of some kind.”

    Y’know, the general thesis of the source article is a bit far fetched. It does recognize, however, that there is a problem with the current theory’s ability to explain the data.

    However, “can learn” = consciousness is a HUGE leap! We software developers have been developing technology that can do something that can realistically be called learning for a long time. I have no reason to believe that any of us has developed anything that can reasonably be described as conscious.

  2. 2
    hgp says:

    However, “can learn” = consciousness is a HUGE leap! We software developers have been developing technology that can do something that can realistically be called learning for a long time. I have no reason to believe that any of us has developed anything that can reasonably be described as conscious.

    While that is possible, this doesn’t solve the underlying problem: if evolution is somehow “programmed” to learn, then that raises the question: programmed by whom? This move only shuffles the required intelligence from evolution itself to the “programmer of evolution”. It doesn’t help to eliminate intelligence from the equation.

Leave a Reply