(January 23, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 3:26 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: No none implemented a system.

What you have confused is stuff happening with a system being followed.

You have here is an example that shows when given an ability to change and a stimulus to change evolution is the result inevitably.

Not people following a flow chart of evolutionary trends.

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.

No I am saying that there isn't a "system" that is followed consulted and adhered to.
People notice trends and alter their car design accordingly.
"I see people are liking wings on their cars, lets put a wing on our cars that are slightly bigger"
What they did not do, at least in the early days, was go to the evolutionary system pack and follow the plan.
This shit just happened.
Change was possible and there was a stimulous to change.
This shit just happened.
Do you understand what I am trying to tell you.

I am dumbing it down as much as I think I can.

Lets think of something similar that maybe you can get your head round.

How about markets.

In Holland there is the apocryphal story of the Tulip bubble.
Tulips, especially strangely coloured ones, became sought after.
Their price rose.
The more the price rose the more people speculated and the price got ever higher until the bulbs were going for the same price as a house.
Then suddenly the bubble burst as bubbles tend to and the price returned to a reasonable level leaving many ruined people in its wake.

The thing that changed here was the price of tulips and the stimulus to change was market speculation.

There was something that could change, there was a stimulous to change and change occurred.

This is just what happens when these things are present, there is no system implemented.

It doesn't really matter. Heywood has demonstrated that he's only willing to consider his own examples, and that when those examples turn out to be something other than what he thought they were, he isn't willing to consider that either. He's long since checked out of rational discussion. No amount of explaining any of this to him will make an iota of difference, because he doesn't give a shit about the things we say, or even the things that he says, this entire thread is an excuse to repeat "therefore god" until armageddon.

(January 24, 2015 at 8:44 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: How about markets.

Markets are systems.

A system is a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole. A market is comprised of buyers, sellers, prices, and products.

---

(January 24, 2015 at 8:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: It doesn't really matter. Heywood has demonstrated that he's only willing to consider his own examples, and that when those examples turn out to be something other than what he thought they were, he isn't willing to consider that either. He's long since checked out of rational discussion. No amount of explaining any of this to him will make an iota of difference, because he doesn't give a shit about the things we say, or even the things that he says, this entire thread is an excuse to repeat "therefore god" until armageddon.

On the fundamentalist boards they say the same things about atheists. That atheists are only willing to consider their own evidence.

Rhythm it is not an unwillingness of my part to consider your examples. I have. Its just that so far every example you guys have presented fails under scrutiny. Julia's example required intellect. Stimbo and Surgenator gave examples of evolutionary systems of which their are no observations of their implementation. You sputtered a bunch of weasel words by trying to categorize evolutionary systems as something so broad it can be virtually anything. Sorry Rhythm we are discussing things with the elements of replication, heritable triats, change and selection.....river systems just don't contain those elements.

---

(January 24, 2015 at 7:00 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't add any more about how you don't understand evolution than has been repeatedly said over the last 50 pages.

Negative Rob, you won't because you can't.

(January 24, 2015 at 3:01 pm)Heywood Wrote: ... atheists are only willing to consider their own evidence.

We will consider ANY evidence, it is just your 'evidence' is lacking in substance and generally falls back to "goddidit" or "the bible says so", neither of which are evidence and certainly not proof in any way shape or form. Your logic fails on so many levels that I have no interest in wasting time and resources rebutting the plethora of hogwash that you have presented. Others are doing just fine and your responses just validate my reasoning.

Opinions are not proof or evidence.
The 'babble-book' is not proof or evidence.
"It must be god" is not proof or evidence.
"Science has no answer" is not proof or evidence.
"You don't know, so I must be right" is not proof or evidence.

Didn't answer my question I see. I'm done then.

(January 24, 2015 at 3:01 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 24, 2015 at 8:44 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: How about markets.

Markets are systems.

A system is a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole. A market is comprised of buyers, sellers, prices, and products.

But you are confusing "complex things" with things that have a plan.
what you are failing to show is where the intellect is required.
What we have repeatedly shown is that given change and a reason to change, change occurs you insisting that intelligence is needed is adding something that isn't required.

Weather patterns are another "evolving evolutionary system" we can see the effects of small changes locally that make long term weather systems.
If a butterfly flaps its wings in America a Typhoon hits China.

But you will argue that weather has been happening as long as the earth has been present so we haven't seen it started, so god.

You are making unreasonable demands and I think you know it.

(January 24, 2015 at 3:56 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: But you are confusing "complex things" with things that have a plan.
what you are failing to show is where the intellect is required.
What we have repeatedly shown is that given change and a reason to change, change occurs you insisting that intelligence is needed is adding something that isn't required.

Weather patterns are another "evolving evolutionary system" we can see the effects of small changes locally that make long term weather systems.
If a butterfly flaps its wings in America a Typhoon hits China.

But you will argue that weather has been happening as long as the earth has been present so we haven't seen it started, so god.

You are making unreasonable demands and I think you know it.

What is unreasonable about the following demand?
Please show how a weather system or typhoon contains the following elements:

Replication
Heritable traits
Change
Selection

If you can't show weather systems or typhoons contain those elements then why should I just accept your claim that they are evolutionary systems? If you concede that weather systems are not evolutionary systems then they don't really tell us anything about evolutionary systems do they?

My definition of evolution is very reasonable. The two propositions I presented are very reasonable. Asking for observations to support either proposition is very reasonable....It is not that I am being unreasonable. Its that you guys are failing....perhaps your world view is just wrong. Have you ever considered that?

---

(January 24, 2015 at 3:31 pm)robvalue Wrote: Didn't answer my question I see. I'm done then.

Rob,

You come out and say that I don't understand evolution and then demand I answer your question. I'm not going to seriously engage you in discussion until you seriously engage in the discussion yourself. Claiming I don't understand evolution without pointing out where I am going wrong adds nothing of value to the discussion. In fact it is quit underhanded as how the hell am I supposed to defend myself against your accusation?

There is one of me debating a bunch of other people. I'm not going to answer everyone's questions or respond to everyone's post. People who engage in the tactics you engaged in are the last people I am going to respond too.

(January 24, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Heywood Wrote: What is unreasonable about the following demand?
Please show how a weather system or typhoon contains the following elements:

Replication
Heritable traits
Change
Selection

If I played as fast and loose with those terms as you have, in the automobile example...I could describe how -anything- contained those "elements". That's whats unreasonable about it...get it? It's not the criteria, it's the manner in which you chose to employ it.

(January 24, 2015 at 7:00 am)Heywood Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 10:42 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Are you saying if nylon was dropped in the puddle via earthquake, then the bacteria wouldn't be able to evolve to the ability to eat it? But since it was drop via factory hose, then the bacteria was able to evolve. Or do you think that the bacteria was already evolving to eat nylon before nylon existed? The only option that doesn't sound ridiculous is the bacteria evolved the ability by itself independent of the method the nylon got to it.

Dropping nylon into a puddle of evolving bacteria is not implementing a new evolutionary system. It is dropping nylon into an existing evolutionary system.

Suppose an earthquake happened in a chemistry lab. Lots of different chemicals accidentally mix and just by shear happenstance, they form a soup of self replicating molecules which are later shown to be evolving. That would be an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence without an intellect.

So your not interested in evolution but abiogenesis. Specifically, how we would get the first self-replicating molecules. Science currently doesn't know the answer. So what? Do you think now that you're claim is correct? Do you think that your claim is more probable? Because it is not. Your claim introduces whole set of other improbable consequences.

(January 24, 2015 at 7:00 am)Heywood Wrote: Suppose an earthquake happened in a chemistry lab. Lots of different chemicals accidentally mix and just by shear happenstance, they form a soup of self replicating molecules which are later shown to be evolving. That would be an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence without an intellect.

Congratulations on retooling the old "tornado in a junkyard" nonsense. Couple of points though.

Wouldn't the presence of the lab and all its contents require intellect?

Are you conceding that natural phenomena such as earthquakes are possible without requiring intellect, ie a god?