Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 2:19 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not -an example-. Multiple examples. If you'd like to see them again - you can reread the thread, just like anybody else. Unless and until you elaborate on the point of disagreement between yourself and those posters who have offered these examples - as you've been invited to do...what more can be done?
If I tell you that there is absolute proof of God existence in the bible will you go back an read the entire bible? Or would you ask me to cite the relevant passage or passages?
Now you claim I have been given an example, yet when I ask you about the specifics of that example....you claim its in the thread...just re-read the thread.
Nah...I ain't going to do that. Other people have read this thread too and if there is really an example that falsifies my claim, they would be quoting it and throwing in my face.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 2:24 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 2:37 pm by Mudhammam.)
(January 6, 2015 at 1:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: 1. randomness is used by intellect in designed systems all the time. A craps game for instance. The dice roll occurs regardless if the result is going to beneficial to house or not. Yeah... except that the whole point of your inferring design in evolution is the assumption that mutations, beneficial or not, are intended to achieve a specific ends for the species... a claim that is refuted by all observation. Moreover, as Coyne also states, "we never see adaptations that benefit the species at the expense of the individual---something that we might have expected if organisms were designed by a beneficent creator."
(January 6, 2015 at 1:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: 2.My argument is based solely on experience and observation and doesn't go beyond that. Then all you're arguing for is a principle of order in nature, not an intellect, and that is, rather than an explanation, the very thing that needs to be explained.
(January 6, 2015 at 1:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: 3. It is one thing to say a supernatural being explains evolution and another thing to say evolutionary systems require intellects to come into existence. You can falsify one proposition but not the other. Which one are you suggesting is falsifiable?
(January 6, 2015 at 1:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: 4. Some material processes require intellect. Why can't evolution be one of them? What material processes require intellect? As others have pointed out, referring to objects human beings have designed, by imitating and manipulating nature's regularities for their purposes, doesn't apply here.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 66491
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Look, I can keep affording you the opportunity to make an ass out of yourself if that's what you like.
Or, you can, as you've been invited to do (again...and again...and again) - elaborate on whatever point of disagreement you have with -any- of the the examples that you've already been given. I know, sounds revolutionary, but it actually works.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 5:25 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 5:27 pm by Heywood.)
(January 6, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Yeah... except that the whole point of your inferring design in evolution is the assumption that mutations, beneficial or not, are intended to achieve a specific ends for the species... a claim that is refuted by all observation. Moreover, as Coyne also states, "we never see adaptations that benefit the species at the expense of the individual---something that we might have expected if organisms were designed by a beneficent creator."
Coyne is referring to the products of evolution not the evolutionary system itself. You either mis-understand what I am saying or you are misunderstanding what Coyne is saying. In this thread, when I say evolutionary systems require the existence of intellects, it has nothing to do with the products of the evolutionary system.
(January 6, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Look, I can keep affording you the opportunity to make an ass out of yourself if that's what you like.
Or, you can, as you've been invited to do (again...and again...and again) - elaborate on whatever point of disagreement you have with -any- of the the examples that you've already been given. I know, sounds revolutionary, but it actually works.
Again I ask you or anyone else to quote these mysterious examples that have allegedly been given. Since you can offer no proof for the existence of these miraculous examples that falsify my claim, I see no reason to believe they exist at all.
Posts: 1164
Threads: 7
Joined: January 1, 2014
Reputation:
23
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 5:32 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Moreover, as Coyne also states, "we never see adaptations that benefit the species at the expense of the individual--- What am I missing here.
Whatever happened to explaining altruism via kin selection?
Seems to me that any benefit to the kin at the expense of the adapted individual qualifies as a counter example here even if the benefit to the species via benefit to the kin is small.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 6:29 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 6:41 pm by Mudhammam.)
(January 6, 2015 at 5:25 pm)Heywood Wrote: Coyne is referring to the products of evolution not the evolutionary system itself. You either mis-understand what I am saying or you are misunderstanding what Coyne is saying. In this thread, when I say evolutionary systems require the existence of intellects, it has nothing to do with the products of the evolutionary system. I understand what you're saying and it makes zero sense because you're arguing that a product of evolution is required for evolution. If you find evidence of "intellects" in fossils of cyanobacteria or other early simple organisms, you'll have something to go on other than unproductive conjecture.
(January 6, 2015 at 5:32 pm)JuliaL Wrote: What am I missing here.
Whatever happened to explaining altruism via kin selection?
Seems to me that any benefit to the kin at the expense of the adapted individual qualifies as a counter example here even if the benefit to the species via benefit to the kin is small. Altruism benefits another individual but not the species, which is what we might expect to see, according to Coyne, if evolution was driving upwards on some "great chain of being," which is a common misconception of theists who think evolution is intentional.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 6:41 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 6:44 pm by Chas.)
(January 6, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Heywood Wrote: (January 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Chas Wrote: Your argument reduces to everything you observe that was created by people was created by an intellect.
Can you show me an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence that did not involve intellect? That is all that I am asking for someone to do. Should be simple enough if evolutionary systems come into existence without the involvement of intellects as you claim.
At least my claim is based on observation while your is based on whimsical thinking.
You cannot demonstrate that the evolution of life on earth required an intellect. There is no mechanism in the Theory of Evolution that requires an intellect.
(January 6, 2015 at 5:32 pm)JuliaL Wrote: (January 6, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Moreover, as Coyne also states, "we never see adaptations that benefit the species at the expense of the individual--- What am I missing here.
Whatever happened to explaining altruism via kin selection?
Seems to me that any benefit to the kin at the expense of the adapted individual qualifies as a counter example here even if the benefit to the species via benefit to the kin is small.
Kin selection is just gene selection. Evolution happens at the gene level, not the organism level.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 7:02 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 6:29 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I understand what you're saying and it makes zero sense because you're arguing that a product of evolution is required for evolution. If you find evidence of "intellects" in fossils of cyanobacteria or other early simple organisms, you'll have something to go on other than unproductive conjecture.
There are multiple ways intellects can come into existence so you can't assume any particular intellect was the product of an evolutionary system.
Posts: 13122
Threads: 130
Joined: October 18, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 7:07 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 7:02 pm)Heywood Wrote: There are multiple ways intellects can come into existence so you can't assume any particular intellect was the product of an evolutionary system.
If you bothered to look at recent cognition experiments with animals, you can very well come to that conclusion.
Posts: 66491
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 7:14 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 7:15 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You're a shameless liar Heywood, and you should have known I'd already prepared you a short list of just some of the examples you've been offered. Not that you're going to stop this behaviour now that I've posted it, I just wanted you to deny it three times before the cock crowed.
(January 2, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Your body
(January 3, 2015 at 12:02 am)Chas Wrote: biological evolution
(January 3, 2015 at 12:48 am)Rhythm Wrote: Chinese whispers
(January 5, 2015 at 1:44 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Solar systems. Rivers.
(January 6, 2015 at 12:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Computational systems (and the products of computational systems - such as simulations)
-Now go crawl in a hole.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
|
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
