Comments on: Evolution 2.0: On the origin of technologies

By: Zsolt Szentirmai

Zsolt Szentirmai — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:40:11 +0000

Thanks, for sorting it out and also for leave the joke in! It come out funny isn’t it?
Good blog, there are some interesting topics and debates here too!
Greetings to Phillis too!

Take care,
zsolt

By: Abeo

Abeo — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:47:32 +0000

haha sorry Zsolt, Phillis was moderating at that point and didn’t notice!
I’ve amended it for you

By: JayKay

JayKay — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:23:42 +0000

I’m off to London Bridge in ten mins to meet the others for teh Unicef walk. Will enjoy the windy evening with fun people and hopefully earn some dosh for charity. Ta Zsolt. Enjoy the rest of the evening’s blog.

By: Zsolt Szentirmai

Zsolt Szentirmai — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:13:53 +0000

Hmm, no human moderator. The machines already took over Derren Browns blog!

Resistance is futile…

By: Zsolt Szentirmai

Zsolt Szentirmai — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:06:51 +0000

JayKay: I hope you slept well and had the necessary strength for the Unicef walk.

Pete: We could understand you better, if you would use some punctuation in your comment.

Tash: As far as I know, _Darwin_ was a hardcore old style scientist. He observed, observed, observed and observed life a lot. And made a lot of notes. Mostly he just wrote down what he saw and did not stated too much. But the few thing he humbly said, changed the view of world about life.

But the theory of his understanding changed a lot in the past 150 years though.

By: Zsolt Szentirmai

Zsolt Szentirmai — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:39:28 +0000

Reading the article of the professor, i think he misses the larger picture, stuck with fragmental changes, drive his argument on very narrow road. His examples are weak:

The jet engine in not evolved from the piston engine, and computers did not come from accumulated changes in electromechanical calculators therefore “Darwin’s mechanism does not apply to technology”.

What?!? Darwin’s understanding of evolution is 150 years old! We know more about evolutionary patterns since 1860.

The unexpected changes (random mutation in biology, human genius in technology) are totally absent in his explanation. After this I’m not interested his book…

By: Tash

Tash — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:14:49 +0000

hmmmmm – well dawkins is usually right isn’t he?

By: Colin

Colin — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:41:49 +0000

Interesting idea that “technology” evolves… my (basic) understanding of evolution is of arbitrary, inheritable adjustments to an organism’s “blueprint”, and natural selection gradually eradicates the less successful blueprints leaving the more successful designs to flourish and populate the next generation of organisms.

In technology, much of the “evolutionary” development is done intentionally, with a target in sight. We want faster, smaller, more efficient microchips, so we research which materials have the properties we want, and what manufacturing techniques can be used (or developed) to give us our end result.

Technology seems to lean towards “intelligent design”… is there an intelligent design/evolution middle ground?

Could technology be intelligently/intentionally evolved?

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:50:20 +0000

(continued)evokes in are brains our thoughts just as life would because we are living beings thinking of it so its always from biology as a designer/inventor i do a lot of world first designs but with out previous designs i would never have been on that path of that design , the nature of information technology is to evolve existing designs but as a species a believe we are at a cross roads we have become good at technology but we are destroying ourselves with it either we change and continue to progress or we destroy ourselves as in a mad max situation probably appealing to some until they are being hunted as a food source as it will be every man for themselves and very little food no farms shops etc, and its the so called leaders of our countries to thank for it talk about stupid !! bye

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:39:14 +0000

(continued) prove that although physics is our existence its cannot really exist as it is impossible to accept the facts it the hardest part but its only perception it is a fact that existence cannot have an outer barrier nor is it possible for us not to have an out side barrier and it is a fact that a place could not exist for existence to begin to exist in etc. but obviously we do exist !! we are real, but as information existing in no place at all combined together as a whole every part connected to the other , live for the experience as that’s all there is, no i am not religious at all religion is a from of control invented before the gun ! ,but we have lots of guns now so whats the point of religion . And now to more to technology and the evolution of it yes i believe it (more)