Why does Heywood think intelligence is required for evolution?

It's like saying water needs intelligence to flow down hill, I just don't get how he isn't getting this.

(January 17, 2015 at 4:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: You've only stated the proposition to be false. You have never once came up with an observation that it is false.

You did. Would you like to pretend..again, that this thread doesn't exist. How'd that work out last time?

Quote: I will accept that rivers occur without intellect. If you can, and now I am asking for the third time, show how a river system contains the following elements required of an evolutionary system...then I will be happy to concede.

Too bad, because rivers and procedural gens work on the same principle to the same effect. I'm not required to jump through every bullshit hoop you let fall out of your mouth just because you refuse to engage in a rational or honest conversation. The effort I;ve already spent was more than your argument deserved and more than was required in order to render the argument null. It's fallacious, factually incorrect by definition, and..at this point, transparently dishonest. All in the service of christ, of course.

Quote:Again those elements are:
replication
heritable traits
change
selection

Don't care. I'm not interested in your weasel words or your equivocation.

Quote:Keep saying I am wrong doesn't make me wrong.....you have to show that I am wrong.

You already handled that.

(January 17, 2015 at 7:20 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why does Heywood think intelligence is required for evolution?

He gets it, he just can't make his argument end with the conclusion that he wants without first assuming it. Meh

(January 17, 2015 at 7:20 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why does Heywood think intelligence is required for evolution?

The goal is to say that god is the initiating intelligence. Apparently someone ran out of delusions and decided to try complete nonsense.

(January 17, 2015 at 7:20 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why does Heywood think intelligence is required for evolution?

It's like saying water needs intelligence to flow down hill, I just don't get how he isn't getting this.

Same reason I think intelligence is required for cars to exist. Now suppose everyone was suddenly vaporized but stuff like buildings and cars remained intact. Cars would not need intellects to persist....at least for the immediate future. However it would be wrong to say that because cars can persist without intellects that they don't require intellects.

Evolutionary systems are the same way. You don't necessarily need intellects around for them to persist, but you do need intellects around to implement them in the first place. Now the reason I have come to this conclusion is because I have observed evolutionary systems and have noticed that all the evolutionary systems I have observed which I know the details of their origination all required intellect to be implemented. I have never observed an evolutionary system which I can say with any confidence did not require intellect to be implemented.

Rhythm is desperately trying to refute this argument by claiming that evolutionary systems are merely procedural generations and procedural generations happen all the time in nature without intellects. I agree that some procedural generations happen in nature without intellects but I also realize that some do not. When you are playing Skyrim specific procedural generations are being implemented that would likely never occur without intellects.

Further, Evolution is more that just a procedural generation. It is a process and not all processes can be implemented without intellects. If you agree that evolution is a process and that not all processes can be implemented without intellects, then you should be open to the question of whether evolution is one of those processes which can't be implemented except in the presence of intellects.

Evolution seems to be one of those processes as evidenced by the fact that we never see new evolutionary seems implemented except in the presence of intellects. If someone wants to present an example of an evolutionary system which has been observed to come into existence without intellects, I would be very happy to see it.

Last, there are certain specific elements of evolution. They are:

replication
heritable traits
change
selection

Rhythm denies these specific elements of evolution by calling them "weasel words". Why those participating in this thread give him a pass on that is beyond me. When he calls those elements "weasel words" he sounds like a fundamentalist or a Young Earth Creationist who has no understanding of evolution.

I challenged Rhythm to show that procedural gens like river systems include these elements which define evolution. He refuses.....because he can't. Does anyone else want to take up the challenge?

(January 18, 2015 at 3:18 am)Heywood Wrote: Last, there are certain specific elements of evolution. They are:
replication
heritable traits
change
selection

You are equivocating on biological evolution and any other kind of evolution. Evolution requires only chance, variable degrees of persistence through time, and sufficient complexity that one persistent form will be able to interact with other persistent forms. That's it.

(January 18, 2015 at 3:27 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 18, 2015 at 3:18 am)Heywood Wrote: Last, there are certain specific elements of evolution. They are:
replication
heritable traits
change
selection

You are equivocating on biological evolution and any other kind of evolution. Evolution requires only chance, variable degrees of persistence through time, and sufficient complexity that one persistent form will be able to interact with other persistent forms. That's it.

Can you give an example of an evolutionary system which satisfies your definition of evolution? Your definition of evolution doesn't refute the case I am making. I can simply say evolutionary systems which contain the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection, seem to require intellect to be present to be implemented.

(January 18, 2015 at 3:30 am)Heywood Wrote: Can you give an example of an evolutionary system which satisfies your definition of evolution? Your definition of evolution doesn't refute the case I am making. I can simply say evolutionary systems which contain the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection, seem to require intellect to be present to be implemented.

Rather they require intellect to be understood in such a way that engineers can imitate their effective results and theosophers can avoid appearing utterly unserious.

(January 18, 2015 at 3:55 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Rather they require intellect to be understood in such a way that engineers can imitate their effective results and theosophers can avoid appearing utterly unserious.

I doubt the people who made the game "Chinese Whispers" were engineers trying to imitate evolution.

Assuming your world view is right, why did nature only create one evolutionary system? Nature doesn't create just one cave or one vortex, etc. Why did all the other evolutionary systems that have come since all required intellects? You can't credibly argue that conditions changed because new evolutionary systems can be readily implemented by intellects now....without even trying.

(January 18, 2015 at 4:08 am)Heywood Wrote: Assuming your world view is right, why did nature only create one evolutionary system? Nature doesn't create just one cave or one vortex, etc. Why did all the other evolutionary systems that have come since all required intellects? You can't credibly argue that conditions changed because new evolutionary systems can be readily implemented by intellects now....without even trying.

Why did nature result in two nuclear forces, one universal law of gravitation, and the electromagnetic force? I'm sure a physicist might have some idea but then I suspect you'll ask "Why?" ad infinitum. Your question is better suited as: "How did evolution of biological forms begin?"; "Is it a rare event?"; and "Can life evolve by a different set of principle interactions?" Nobody knows the answers for the first two and the third seems to be answered in your misguided insistence that humans can moderately imitate the changes they systematize through empirical and philosophical investigation. In fact, we see evolution occur in a variety of analogies to natural selection, including language, and our application of specialized knowledge to different goals, such as in reconstructing genomes or designing computers. In none of these cases is evolution guided by a single intellect---as in language---instead it happens largely accidentally and not by design. The same is true with chemical changes within genes that allow for one species to thrive and thus be specially prone to adaptation, as it becomes suited for successful migration into new environments. In no instance can you or anyone else show that natural selection ever involves anything but the basic forces within an environment interacting with a replicator---but most importantly, nor can you demonstrate what advantage introducing an UNOBSERVED intellect has over chance and necessity, which ARE observed in gene mutation and survival of the fittest. All your analogies to human imitation are simply that, analogies, and fail to adequately apply to natural change in much the same way that gravity doesn't become an intelligent force simply because we can reproduce its effects in simulation.

This seems relevant.

it was on the BBC news site today.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gsh40

---

(January 18, 2015 at 3:18 am)Heywood Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 7:20 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why does Heywood think intelligence is required for evolution?

It's like saying water needs intelligence to flow down hill, I just don't get how he isn't getting this.

Same reason I think intelligence is required for cars to exist. Now suppose everyone was suddenly vaporized but stuff like buildings and cars remained intact. Cars would not need intellects to persist....at least for the immediate future. However it would be wrong to say that because cars can persist without intellects that they don't require intellects.

This is the blind watchmaker argument that Darwin proved incorrect over a hundred years ago.

Quote:Evolutionary systems are the same way. You don't necessarily need intellects around for them to persist, but you do need intellects around to implement them in the first place.

You are trying to sneak god in the same way theists try to sneak it into morality and gravity.
"Who sets the morals?" you ask.
"Who set the strength of gravity and speed of light?"
"Who set evolution in motion?"

The answer to all of the above is no-one.
So why are they the way they are?

With gravity and the speed of light we don't know yet but are working on it.

But we do know why evolution is the way it is, which is why your argument is so stupid.

It is easy to understand how it developed without guiding intelligence.
It is what happens when things start to mingle and breed.

Remember for over a billion years that life existed on earth there was no breeding and life went along making only small changes then sex came along and bam the speed of change exploded. So your god of evolution did not start for over a billion years, where was he?
No where of course.

Quote: Now the reason I have come to this conclusion is because I have observed evolutionary systems and have noticed that all the evolutionary systems I have observed which I know the details of their origination all required intellect to be implemented.

Then you are insufficiently educated.

Quote: I have never observed an evolutionary system which I can say with any confidence did not require intellect to be implemented.

You are the result of just such a system.

Quote:Rhythm is desperately trying to refute this argument by claiming that evolutionary systems are merely procedural generations and procedural generations happen all the time in nature without intellects. I agree that some procedural generations happen in nature without intellects but I also realize that some do not. When you are playing Skyrim specific procedural generations are being implemented that would likely never occur without intellects.

You are mistaking men exploiting certain aspects of evolution with evolution itself. Its like the difference between a rain forrest and a garden.
Because gardens exist does not mean someone made the rain forrest.

Quote:Further, Evolution is more that just a procedural generation. It is a process and not all processes can be implemented without intellects.

You are confusing a rigid process with a blue print, with what happens in certain circumstances.

Evolution could not be simpler.

If something stops a creature or plant from reproducing then it's traits are not passed on. It a creature or plant does reproduce then it's traits are passed on.
It's that simple. Once things start breeding evolution is inevitable.

Quote: If you agree that evolution is a process and that not all processes can be implemented without intellects, then you should be open to the question of whether evolution is one of those processes which can't be implemented except in the presence of intellects.

No intelligence is required for evolution. It is inevitable once animals shared genetic information in offspring.

Quote:Evolution seems to be one of those processes as evidenced by the fact that we never see new evolutionary seems implemented except in the presence of intellects. If someone wants to present an example of an evolutionary system which has been observed to come into existence without intellects, I would be very happy to see it.

You just say the same thing over and over again hoping that if you say it enough it will become true.
It isn't.

I present all of biological evolution you can even include horse and dog breeding if you like because this is just men exploiting aspects of evolution that they've noticed, the process itself does not require intelligence.
Selective breeding is men using evolution to get specific results, what it isn't is proof that evolution requires intelligence.