Detecting design or intent in nature

[Mudhammam]

You are assuming this evolutionary system did not require an intellect to design it or be a component of it without any reason.

LOL. Yeah, just like I "assume" invisible "intellects" aren't pushing the planets around in orbit or needed to explain gravitation.

Intellect create evolutionary systems, we know this to be a fact and we have plenty of observations of such. We have 0, zilch, nada....not even one iota of an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence sans intellect. You are arguing that the evolutionary system which created us is some sort of special case solely on an assumption that intellects can only come into existence via evolution......yet you admit that intellects can beget intellects so the assumption upon which you base your position is false.

Humans are a special case of beings with an ability to abstract principles of motion and implement them into contrived systems in the same way that a spider is a special case of beings that can spin silk from their abdomen. You are arguing for an "intellect" that comes into being absent of any contingency on evolutionary processes... Human designs, such as AI, require brains that have evolved to imitate nature through concepts, and can facilitate intentional designs, which is why we don't see computers spontaneously appearing in thin air, as would be presumably required of your silver bullet that "designed" DNA. We have no examples or evidence for any intellects that have just "always existed," absent of any gradual process of selection. When you can come up with one, maybe you will cease making such an uninteresting and silly argument.

---

OK, I'm still confuged.
If evolution is solely about changes in gene frequency, then why think that there are benefits for individuals and not the species? I don't see how you can accept one and reject the other.

If my girlfriend wasn't beckoning I would try to explain it further but there's A LOT of literature available online about the differences between kin selection and group selection. I see your point about Coyne's wording being a little confusing though.

Hopefully this helps to clarify:

"There are formidable theoretical problems with many concepts of group selection. These include the fact that individuals reproduce faster than groups, so that an adaptation that is good for groups (say, pure altruism, in which individuals sacrifice their reproduction through behaviors that bring no benefits to the genes producing such behaviors), won’t spread because the rate of propagation of groups is undermined by the evolutionary disadvantage of altruistic behaviors within groups (non-altruists, or “cheaters,” will replace the altruists since they get the benefits without the costs). In other words, altruistic groups may do better than non-altruistic ones, but that won’t produce species-wide altruism because non-altruists do better than altruists within groups—unless, of course, altruists aren’t “pure” altruists and their genes reap some benefit from the behavior, in which case it’s kin selection."

This is from Jerry Coyne's blog:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...selection/