(January 20, 2015 at 5:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote: First off, there is more than one way to make fusion. A tokamak is a clever design go get fusion. There is also the brute force method that stars use. The fact that stars created fusion by the dumpest way possible suggest no intelligence was involved. What makes people 99.999% sure no intelligence was involved is because a large mass of hydrogen will collapse and thermonuclearly ignite all on its own. It is fundamentally the same as water flowing downhill. It doesn't require intelligence to tell water to go downhill, and it doesn't take intelligence to tell hydrogen to collapse and thermonuclearly ignite.

Chas is claiming that since we've only observed fusion happen as a result of intellect, it increases the likelyhood that that fusion in the sun is the result of intellect. His argument would be right if it was true that we only observe fusion happen as the result of human intellect.

Where Chas makes his error is he claims we never observe fusion resulting without intellect. He uses the sun as an example. It is a bad example because we've observed suns in various stages of "birth" come into existence without intellect.

We have never observed evolutionary systems come into existence without intellect. If we have, please specify it.

(January 21, 2015 at 1:16 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 20, 2015 at 5:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote: First off, there is more than one way to make fusion. A tokamak is a clever design go get fusion. There is also the brute force method that stars use. The fact that stars created fusion by the dumpest way possible suggest no intelligence was involved. What makes people 99.999% sure no intelligence was involved is because a large mass of hydrogen will collapse and thermonuclearly ignite all on its own. It is fundamentally the same as water flowing downhill. It doesn't require intelligence to tell water to go downhill, and it doesn't take intelligence to tell hydrogen to collapse and thermonuclearly ignite.

Chas is claiming that since we've only observed fusion happen as a result of intellect, it increases the likelyhood that that fusion in the sun is the result of intellect. His argument would be right if it was true that we only observe fusion happen as the result of human intellect.

Where Chas makes his error is he claims we never observe fusion resulting without intellect. He uses the sun as an example. It is a bad example because we've observed suns in various stages of "birth" come into existence without intellect.

We have never observed evolutionary systems come into existence without intellect. If we have, please specify it.

Somehow I think you're misrepresenting Chas's statements. To me, Chas was demonstrating how your argument fails if you replaced evolution with thermonuclear reactor. He was not advocating the sun requires intelligence. Chas will probably comment to clarify and also throw an insult as well.

(January 21, 2015 at 1:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: We have never observed evolutionary systems come into existence without intellect. If we have, please specify it.

Well we do know that biological evolution has no need of an intellect but you disallow this because we weren't there at the start of life to observe it.

So what you are doing is making an unreasonable request in an attempt to try and make your assertions seem less idiotic.

You failed.

What is interesting is that when things can change and there is pressure to change they will or they will die out.

You see this all sorts of things from businesses to religions.
Everything that can end if it doesn't change will end if the right impetus is in place.

What this means is that evolution occurs even when intellect is involved not because it is involved.

No one said "lets see who has the longest lasting belief system" it just happened.

So the evolutionary system is not something that was put in place, it was just the result of shit happening.

(January 21, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Somehow I think you're misrepresenting Chas's statements. To me, Chas was demonstrating how your argument fails if you replaced evolution with thermonuclear reactor. He was not advocating the sun requires intelligence. Chas will probably comment to clarify and also throw an insult as well.

I wouldn't be surprised. Insults are the weapons of choice for the weak minded. His argument fails because we observe thermonuclear reactors coming into existence without the need of intellects. The same cannot be said of evolutionary systems. If it can, show me the observation.

---

(January 20, 2015 at 4:35 pm)JuliaL Wrote: You asked for an instance of an evolutionary system not intentionally designed by intellect. I considered using the flock, the school or the ant colony. But to be more poignant, I offer religion, arising as an emergent property of human interaction. Among humans, tribes leading to nation states and overall society also qualify. You may object that these involve humans and therefore intellects. The involvement of an intellect in a non-intentional role doesn't count if you are trying to make the inference of a personal God being required to kick off humanity or life on earth. Nobody intended to create the tribe. An impersonal cause is consistent with a naturalistic explanation.

JuliaL, Thank you for giving us specific examples to look at. This is exactly what I am asking people to do. I would argue that flocks, schools(of fish), or ant colonies are not evolutionary systems in their own right. They are emergent complex system.

But lets look at tribes. Does it have the elements of an evolutionary system
Replication: Tribes do replicate. Members move off and start new tribes.
Heritable traits: New tribes share the same knowledge and culture of the parent.
Change: Knowledge and culture do change, this is self evident.
Selection: Not all Tribes survive or are successful.

So yes I would say civilization counts as an evolutionary system. I would even go on to agree with you that it wasn't intentionally designed. But if you pay close attention to my posts(you can look at my first post on the first page of this thread for instance), I have always maintained that evolutionary systems required intellect, either as a designer or as a component. I have never claimed that all evolutionary systems were intentionally created by intellects.

Tribes is not an example of an evolutionary system that did not require intellect to be implemented. It may not have been intentional but it certainly needed intellect.

He can't kick a 40, so he places the ball on the 15...lol. You're still wrong, and for the same reasons as before (factually inaccuracy and logical invalidity). There are still examples of your "evolutionary systems" that have no requirement of intellect, and we are still confusing the presence of involvement with a requirement of involvement.

(January 21, 2015 at 2:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: He can't kick a 40, so he places the ball on the 15...lol. You're still wrong, and for the same reasons as before (factually inaccuracy and logical invalidity). There are still examples of your "evolutionary systems" that have no requirement of intellect, and we are still confusing the presence of involvement with a requirement of involvement.

Except that I am right. Every time you observe an evolutionary system and find it required intellect for its implementation, and never observe an evolutionary system which did not require intellect for its implementation....it increases the likelihood that all evolutionary systems require intellect for their implementation.

Rhythm instead of just asserting that I am wrong. Perhaps you can provide a specific example.....like Julia has.....that can be evaluated. Stay away from nebulous weasel examples like "procedural gens" which can mean anything.

Procedural gen can't mean anything, it's a very specific term. They exist, and as long as they exist and you cannot let it go..you're never going to get this right. Could I argue your point by different means, sure, but I don't have to. You're the one who decided to make the claim (and you're the one who pretends to have let them loose while continuing to claim them). This has been your baby from the word go. I haven't seen a single observation from you that supports the claim -other- than what you -thought- a procedural gen was. Reformulate, show a little integrity, give me something else to chew....and you know I will. I'll comment on your other failed observations the moment that you show me you're interested in a reasonable conversation..or that you even know -how- to have a reasonable conversation. I'm starting to think that -you- are a pretty good example of an evolutionary system with no requirement or involvement of intelligence.

Do work.

Random input: As I mentioned in another thread, my evolutionary biology professor used the fact that rabbits eat their own feces (to double the length of their digestive tract) as an argument against God - apparently because eating poo is nasty and god should do that. It seems to me an elegant solution to the problems of digesting cellulose.

(January 21, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Procedural gen can't mean anything, it's a very specific term. They exist, and as long as they exist and you cannot let it go..you're never going to get this right. Could I argue your point by different means, sure, but I don't have to. You're the one who decided to make the claim (and you're the one who pretends to have let them loose while continuing to claim them). This has been your baby from the word go. I haven't seen a single observation from you that supports the claim -other- than what you -thought- a procedural gen was. Reformulate, show a little integrity, give me something else to chew....and you know I will. I'll comment on your other failed observations the moment that you show me you're interested in a reasonable conversation..or that you even know -how- to have a reasonable conversation. I'm starting to think that -you- are a pretty good example of an evolutionary system with no requirement or involvement of intelligence.

Do work.

Give us an example of a procedural gen which is also an evolutionary system which doesn't/didn't require intellect to be implemented.

You won't because you can't.

I already have, but you're committed to claiming that this thread doesn't exist ( I think you've spent more time on that claim than you have on your god claim) - so that's probably not very helpful, eh? You've lost any grounds for making demands with me.

Do work.