(January 24, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(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.

Your definition of evolution is very reasonable, yes. But your background hypothesis of an intelligence making a system is a believe not based on evidences...It is just the link between the differents parts of your proposition that isn't reasonable. It s a kind of sophism.

A cheap horse is rare.
what is rare is expensive.
A cheap horse is expensive.

The basis of your proposition is that evolutionary system is compared to an artificial evolutionary system with a big computer behind it and a programmer. You reject every hypothesis that isn't in this pseudo logical system. It s a sophism.

But natural evolutionary system is like every system that evolve. Solar system. Our galaxy. The matter. If you look at atoms of differents elements we can find on earth they are an historical result https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Ta...9ments.svg.
Your thinking system is.

We can create an evolutionnary system on a computer ( programmed by a intelligent programmer ).
This system runs.
Every evolutionary system that runs is based onto an intelligence ( a big programmer ).==== > Wrong : Not a scientific conclusion.

That s not logical at all.
That s not reasonable.

(January 24, 2015 at 5:37 pm)helyott Wrote: A cheap horse is rare.
what is rare is expensive.
A cheap horse is expensive.

"what is rare is expensive." - Only if there is sufficient demand.

(January 24, 2015 at 5:42 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(January 24, 2015 at 5:37 pm)helyott Wrote: A cheap horse is rare.
what is rare is expensive.
A cheap horse is expensive.

"what is rare is expensive." - Only if there is sufficient demand.

It s only a demonstration of what is a sophism. If it s expensive it s means there is a market for it. But we are not here to make an economical demo.

I think it's more accurate to say he lacks the comprehension necessary to understand how scientific methods for gathering data and simulating environmental variables work.

He is basically using the scorn-worthy argument that since we do not DIRECTLY observe something, we can't say it's real. We observe abiogenesis in action by recreating the environment of early earth, which is exactly how evolution on earth began, and he tries to move the goalposts out of reach by stating that we must observe it without recreating it and must instead see it in action...in an environment that is no longer conducive to initiating evolution.

I reject that premise. Biological evolution exists. Abiogenesis recreates the conditions of early earth that led to the development of amino acids, the basis for organic life, which by process of combination led to RNA and eventually into more advanced DNA sequences. The former confirms that the latter happened, because the only other explanation is "god did it" and, to spin the argument back on Heywood, there has been no direct observation of biological evolution being implemented by a deity-figure. One explanation has observable and testable evidence supporting it. One is a claim with no basis whatsoever and neither observation nor testable evidence to support it.

This is pretty basic stuff, I learned this back in tenth grade. I don't see why it's so hard for certain people to understand.

But then, I don't think Heywood was expecting to actually debate. I think he sees the subject in terms of oversimplification and with faulty logical processes and either doesn't grasp the argument at hand, or doesn't want to. This is a topic that if he is wrong (and he is), it tears asunder a very large cornerstone of his beliefs. Remembering the discomfort having my own delusions broken caused me at the outset of me becoming an atheist, I guess I can sympathize. Sort of.

I think it's cute that you're imagining that -any- portion of a persons belief or fealty would be based on this.

(January 24, 2015 at 4:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.

How am I playing fast and loose? Are you saying cars being replicated on an assembly line is not replication? Are you saying that even though the form of this years cars is largely inherited from last years cars...that's not heritability? Are you saying small tweaks to the design every year isn't really change? Are you saying when you go to a car lot, you don't select the car you're going to purchase? Claiming I am playing "fast and loose" with those terms is simply hand waving away a point you are incapable of refuting. Sorry but I don't accept your weaseling out counter argument(if you can even call it that).

Heywood: fair enough, my comment was unecessary and came off more confrontational than I intended. My apologies.

(January 24, 2015 at 4:51 pm)Surgenator Wrote: 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.

Negative,

I'm interested in how evolutionary systems come into existence(which is a fair question).

My claim is that since all the evolutionary systems whose details of origination are known to us have all required intellects, that is reason to believe that all evolutionary systems require intellects. If everytime I measured the permittivity of free space and found it be exactly the same....no matter where I measure it, that is reason to believe that the permittivity of free space is exactly the same everywhere. There are points in space that I cannot measure the permittivity....because those points are in the past. I can still draw reasonable conclusions about them though.

I asked you if you could provide an observation of an implementation of an evolutionary system which did not require an intellect. You provide an observation of an evolutionary system which you admit, you have no idea how it was implemented. How can you now say with a straight face that the observation you presented falsifies my argument?

---

(January 25, 2015 at 4:09 am)robvalue Wrote: Heywood: fair enough, my comment was unecessary and came off more confrontational than I intended. My apologies.

Apology accepted. Too answer your question the argument I presented doesn't get you to God. The only conclusion you can draw from it is that evolutionary systems require intellects to come into existence. That intellect doesn't have to be God-like because it is obvious that human-like intellect is sufficient.

As a side note to this rather irritating conversation I shall add a side bar.

Complex things can come about as a result of non-intelligence just by doing what materials do.

If you put nails at random in a board and put the board nail down in washing up liquid when you take the board out of the liquid surface tension will put connections between the nails that uses the smallest possible lines between the nails.

If you wanted to work out the same problem yourself it would take ages and complex maths, but the liquid does it just because of surface tension.

I've seen this done on science programmes but can I find the buggers now.

(January 25, 2015 at 5:10 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: As a side note to this rather irritating conversation I shall add a side bar.

Complex things can come about as a result of non-intelligence just by doing what materials do.

If you put nails at random in a board and put the board nail down in washing up liquid when you take the board out of the liquid surface tension will put connections between the nails that uses the smallest possible lines between the nails.

If you wanted to work out the same problem yourself it would take ages and complex maths, but the liquid does it just because of surface tension.

I've seen this done on science programmes but can I find the buggers now.

What you are talking about is emergent complex phenomena. However keep in mind that some emergent complex phenomena requires intellect or it will not emerge. The flocking of birds or the schooling of fish is an emergent complex phenomena that you don't see except when things with brains are involved. Have you ever seen dust particles flock they way birds or fish do?

Could evolution be one of those emergent complex phenomena that require intellect? That is a valid question and the only way to answer it scientifically is to observe evolutionary systems coming into existence and noting whether or not intellects were always required. If such an an endeavor leads to a conclusion that completely contradicts someones world view.....you should expect some pushback regardless of how valid your approach is. People don't like their faith shaken.