You ask us for an example where humans replicate natural evolution, but without involving an intellect? Come on, you must be trolling. No one can be this obviously inconsistent without noticing, for 24 pages on end.

(March 25, 2014 at 5:19 am)Alex K Wrote: You ask us for an example where humans replicate natural evolution, but without involving an intellect? Come on, you must be trolling. No one can be this obviously inconsistent without noticing, for 24 pages on end.

Yes they can.
It's called being religious.

(March 25, 2014 at 5:41 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(March 25, 2014 at 5:19 am)Alex K Wrote: You ask us for an example where humans replicate natural evolution, but without involving an intellect? Come on, you must be trolling. No one can be this obviously inconsistent without noticing, for 24 pages on end.

Yes they can.
It's called being religious.

I forgot. What a terrible affliction.

If evolutionary systems require intellect, what do intellects require? Not evolutionary systems, apparently. Kind of makes the whole process a pointless endeavor from the perspective of the Creator, no?

(March 24, 2014 at 9:16 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 24, 2014 at 8:47 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I don't think anybody would argue that point. Humans are very remarkable in many ways. But it's what you want to say beyond that, that causality implies teleology, that more is needed to explain evolution beyond physical laws acting on physical objects; that is what I find grossly unjustified in light of the data.

I have never said anything beyond pointing out that intellects can design a fitness paradigm and let evolution produce an intended form. Humans are doing that today. The reason humans can do this is because evolution is not a blind process as suggested by Dawkins.

You have not, however, satisfactorily defined what a 'fitness paradigm' is.

---

(March 24, 2014 at 9:16 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 24, 2014 at 8:47 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I don't think anybody would argue that point. Humans are very remarkable in many ways. But it's what you want to say beyond that, that causality implies teleology, that more is needed to explain evolution beyond physical laws acting on physical objects; that is what I find grossly unjustified in light of the data.

I have never said anything beyond pointing out that intellects can design a fitness paradigm and let evolution produce an intended form. Humans are doing that today. The reason humans can do this is because evolution is not a blind process as suggested by Dawkins.

It is not 'suggested by Dawkins', it is an integral part of the theory of evolution.

---

(March 24, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: That is largely the point of the selfish gene theory and his formulation of memes.

---

(March 24, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Heywood Wrote: Negative.....Dawkins was claiming Evolution doesn't home in on targets like his demonstration did.

Natural selection homes in on targets because it's an eliminative process. But it's still blind in that it does not plan for the future. That's his point. There's no designer beyond physical law. And it's not an intelligent process as brilliant as it may appear to us.

No - there are no targets, there is no 'homing in'.

---

(March 24, 2014 at 10:27 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 24, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Natural selection homes in on targets because it's an eliminative process. But it's still blind in that it does not plan for the future. That's his point. There's no designer beyond physical law. And it's not an intelligent process as brilliant as it may appear to us.

Its a mechanistic process that appears not to be able to come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect. Again I challenge....replicate natural evolution without substantive involvement of an intellect. Can't do it? How about show me evolutionary systems coming into existence without the involvement of an intellect? Can you do that at least?

Every natural phenomena we observe today, we can observe an example of that phenomena coming into existence without an intellect. Want to observe a tornado come into existence without an intellect, park your ass in Kansas for a bit. Where on earth do you go to observe an evolutionary system come into existence?....You have to go to where intellects are making them because they just don't come into existence on their own. Now you would have me believe this one system did come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect? Why should I believe that?

Of course we don't observe it 'coming into existence'. There is only one and it's already here.

When we get to other worlds, then we may observe it.

Heywood is making the classic blunder in thinking natural selection chooses the traits an animal "needs," a gross misunderstanding based in simplistic thinking.

"Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem."



"Evolution does not work this way.

This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

(March 25, 2014 at 5:19 am)Alex K Wrote: You ask us for an example where humans replicate natural evolution, but without involving an intellect? Come on, you must be trolling. No one can be this obviously inconsistent without noticing, for 24 pages on end.

I have addressed this concern of yours already...multiple times. Each time you ignore it. Now you are stooping to claiming I am trolling?

I find that are you are not a worthy adversary.

---

(March 25, 2014 at 12:03 am)JuliaL Wrote: Because plausible mechanisms have been proposed (RNA world) which would explain the kickoff of the world's longest lasting unbroken organic chemical reaction. Your observation that we haven't seen new systems of replication with variation arise without intentional intervention is moot if the only intellects we have ever witnessed are the result of natural, unintelligent, processes.

This is a good point on your part. Now I have asserted that every time one sees an evolutionary system whose inception is known to be the result of an intellect(without ever observing an evolutionary system whose inception is known to have resulted without the involvement of an intellect)...it increases the likelihood that all evolutionary systems require an intellect. I do recognize that the probability that all observed evolutionary systems require an intellect can never exceed the probability of the existence of the creating intellect in the first place. This is obvious.

However, If I conclude that evolutionary systems seem to require an intellect to exist, that gives me reason to believe the probability of an intellect capable of creating the evolutionary system which created us is fairly high.

(March 25, 2014 at 12:03 am)JuliaL Wrote: I'd rather say that in the production of replicating, evolving systems, intellect is sufficient but its necessity is unproven.

It is equally unproven that evolution can happen without an intellect. But it is proven that evolution can happen with an intellect.

(March 25, 2014 at 12:03 am)JuliaL Wrote: In answer to the OP point about convergent evolution:
Convergent evolution requires intelligence to guide it as much as rain requires intelligence to find the river which takes it back to the ocean. Intelligence might do the job, but gravity is the simpler explanation.

The water that falls as rain will take a predictable, pre-destined path to the ocean. It doesn't just blindly move toward the ocean in a drunkard's walk kind of way.

Ouch, the burn.
My ego demands that I be deemed worthy immediately or I will ragequit... something!

(March 25, 2014 at 7:28 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ouch, the burn.

If I was trying to burn you....you would be burned. I'm trying to get you debate honestly...that's all.

(March 25, 2014 at 7:30 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 25, 2014 at 7:28 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ouch, the burn.

If I was trying to burn you....you would be burned. I'm trying to get you debate honestly...that's all.

Good to see that at least your ego seems to be unfettered