Posts: 67296
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Surge, did you miss the part where Heywood rejected any and all examples of actual evolution so that he could prevaricate upon what that newly empty term -actually means-?
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 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm
(January 23, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (January 23, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Heywood Wrote: So you are saying there is no system which exists which produces automobiles....that automobiles just happen to come into existence? That is ludicrous. There is a system which produces automobiles and it has all the elements of an evolutionary system and it also happens to have been implemented by intellects.
I think you're in denial.
Automobiles are not natural occurring, they do not reproduce, they do not die.
Your analogy is a failure on all levels.
Self reproduction is not an requirement of an evolutionary system. Replication is. You need replication to have evolution, not necessarily self reproduction.
Posts: 67296
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 23, 2015 at 4:11 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2015 at 4:13 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Good god, stick to one claimed requirement at a time killer? Ever occur to you that what's "required" in this argument, is that people accept your claims before accepting your claims?
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: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 23, 2015 at 4:13 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2015 at 4:15 pm by Cyberman.)
(January 23, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote: As an example of evolution without intellect, how about bacteria evolving to consume plastics or nylon. In both cases, humans didn't do any selection process or genetic engineering. This wasn't done is some science lab. The only thing humans did was throw away trash.
Ah, but it still required human intellect to make the nylon and throw it away. Or something.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 23, 2015 at 4:15 pm
(January 23, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Automobiles do not evolve. Automobiles come from automobile factories. Automobiles do not grow up to be automobile factories. Automobile factories do not mate with other factories to make automobiles.
Evolution doesn't require self reproduction only replication. If you think evolution requires self reproduction you do not understand evolution. Memetic evolution is a concept that has been around longer than you have been alive and memes do not self reproduce....but they do evolve. Why? Because they are replicated.
(January 23, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote: As an example of evolution without intellect, how about bacteria evolving to consume plastics or nylon. In both cases, humans didn't do any selection process or genetic engineering. This wasn't done is some science lab. The only thing humans did was throw away trash.
You are giving an example of the system of biological evolution. We have no observations of this system being implemented. It fails to support proposition 2.
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 23, 2015 at 4:29 pm
(January 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Surge, did you miss the part where Heywood rejected any and all examples of actual evolution so that he could prevaricate upon what that newly empty term -actually means-?
Apparently 
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 23, 2015 at 4:38 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2015 at 4:41 pm by Heywood.)
(January 23, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Surgenator Wrote: (January 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Surge, did you miss the part where Heywood rejected any and all examples of actual evolution so that he could prevaricate upon what that newly empty term -actually means-?
Apparently
Surge, you're a pretty smart guy. Maybe you can do what no else so far in this thread has been able to do. Present an observation of the implementation of an evolutionary system which did not require an intellect. If you didn't observe the system being implemented but only believe it was implemented sans intellect as a matter of faith....that doesn't count. Faith based statements do not falsify proposition 1, only actual observations.
All it takes to falsify proposition 1 is one observation. Can you find that observation? If you can't find it can you be honest enough to state that no such observations are known to exist?
Posts: 67296
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 23, 2015 at 4:46 pm
Strange, if all it took was one then you'd have shut your mouth long ago. You haven't, because like your god claim, this claim is demonstrably non-factual.
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: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 23, 2015 at 4:48 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2015 at 4:49 pm by Surgenator.)
(January 23, 2015 at 4:15 pm)Heywood Wrote: (January 23, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Automobiles do not evolve. Automobiles come from automobile factories. Automobiles do not grow up to be automobile factories. Automobile factories do not mate with other factories to make automobiles.
Evolution doesn't require self reproduction only replication. If you think evolution requires self reproduction you do not understand evolution. Memetic evolution is a concept that has been around longer than you have been alive and memes do not self reproduce....but they do evolve. Why? Because they are replicated. Sorry but I'm not interested in your equivocation fallacy. It is questionable if meme's even exist, unlike genes. Also, I fail to see how selective pressure is placed upon memes.
Quote: (January 23, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote: As an example of evolution without intellect, how about bacteria evolving to consume plastics or nylon. In both cases, humans didn't do any selection process or genetic engineering. This wasn't done is some science lab. The only thing humans did was throw away trash.
You are giving an example of the system of biological evolution. We have no observations of this system being implemented. It fails to support proposition 2.
If I take the nylon example, the bacteria in the waste water pond develops the ability to break up a compound that NEVER EXISTED on planet earth before. The bacteria's cousins (non-waste water version) do not have this ability. So what do you conclude, an intelligence secretly engineered these bacteria to eat nylon? Or, did the bacteria evolved the property itself?
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 23, 2015 at 4:55 pm
(January 23, 2015 at 4:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: Surge, you're a pretty smart guy. Maybe you can do what no else so far in this thread has been able to do. Present an observation of the implementation of an evolutionary system which did not require an intellect. If you didn't observe the system being implemented but only believe it was implemented sans intellect as a matter of faith....that doesn't count. Faith based statements do not falsify proposition 1, only actual observations.
All it takes to falsify proposition 1 is one observation. Can you find that observation? If you can't find it can you be honest enough to state that no such observations are known to exist?
Italian wall lizards.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
|
