What is it about flocking of fish and birds specifically that leads you to see intent of intelligence rather than just response to external stimuli like any other natural "flocking" of non-intelligent objects?

(January 25, 2015 at 6:05 am)Heywood Wrote: 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?

Iron particles group around a magnet in an organized way. Are you saying that God is hanging around in magnets putting all those particles in order? Cuz my guess is that's just natural forces at work.

---

(January 25, 2015 at 4:27 am)Heywood Wrote: 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.

That is a false syllogism at the most basic level. All underwater volcanoes we know of are created on Earth-- so that is reason to believe that every underwater volcano in the universe is probably created on Earth, right? It is right, by your logic; however, it is not right by actual logic. You're also cherry-picking. All the complex evolutionary systems we've observed being created are created by carbon-based, Earthbound lifeforms; therefore, there is reason to believe that all complex evolutionary systems in nature are most likely created by carbon-based, Earthbound lifeforms, right? Right by your logic, wrong by actual logic.

I challenge you to respond to this post without shameless special pleading. Good luck.

(January 25, 2015 at 4:27 am)Heywood Wrote: 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.

It strikes me as a sort of "gaps/prove a negative" hybrid. "If everything of this type works this way, then this other thing of the same type must work that way as well. If you cannot prove that it doesn't, then I will assume it does."

I don't know why anyone has been chasing you around this tree so long, aside from serving as an example of what happens when more than one person wants to get the last word in.

(January 25, 2015 at 4:00 am)Heywood Wrote: How am I playing fast and loose? Are you saying cars being replicated on an assembly line is not replication?

It's manufacturing.

Quote: Are you saying that even though the form of this years cars is largely inherited from last years cars...that's not heritability?

It is neither inherited nor heritable. It's a design change, or it;s simply part of the same process from last year as part of shared comps.

Quote: Are you saying small tweaks to the design every year isn't really change?

Sure, that's change, what isn't? Stasis isn't something we see much representation of on this rock regardless of the subject.

Quote: Are you saying when you go to a car lot, you don't select the car you're going to purchase?

It's not selection in the sense of evolution. I select coffee in the morning, I could probably tell you all about the evolutionary system of my morning joe.

Quote: Claiming I am playing "fast and loose" with those terms is simply hand waving away a point you are incapable of refuting.

You missed the refutation, oh, my bad, that was the first time I responded by stating that you were equivocating - which you are and continue to do. Another way of saying "equivocate" is "playing fast and loose with words". Understand?

Quote: Sorry but I don't accept your weaseling out counter argument(if you can even call it that).

No counterargument has been provided, and none is required. Understand? I'm trying to help you l2logic. The claim itself is uninteresting to me at this point. Trying to find a way to phrase it that is valid and sound is far more interesting, we might get to a "some evolutionary systems might require design" conclusion. At which point I'll probably say something along the lines of "No shit". I'm holding your hand till we arrive. That, and I like to give you opportunity to keep making batshit and/or self refuting claims. That's what makes your end of the AF world go 'round, after all.

(January 25, 2015 at 4:00 am)Heywood Wrote:

(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).

Evolution requires the replication of replicators. Your example fails.

---

(January 25, 2015 at 4:27 am)Heywood Wrote:

(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).

And this has been answered. Evolution is the inevitable result of imperfect replication of replicators and differential reproductive success.

There is no 'system' to come into existence.

(January 25, 2015 at 7:07 am)StuW Wrote: What is it about flocking of fish and birds specifically that leads you to see intent of intelligence rather than just response to external stimuli like any other natural "flocking" of non-intelligent objects?

Its not that I see the intent of intellect. It is that I observe that whenever there is a flock or school, brains are always involved. From that observation I can conclude that brains are required for flocking.

---

(January 25, 2015 at 8:27 am)bennyboy Wrote: Iron particles group around a magnet in an organized way. Are you saying that God is hanging around in magnets putting all those particles in order? Cuz my guess is that's just natural forces at work.

Iron particles arranging themselves around a magnet is not flocking. The iron particles gather around the magnet because of the electromagnetic force. Birds flock because they follow a set of rules:

1. avoid predators.
2. don't be to close to your neighbor.
3. don't be to far away from your neighbor.

Iron particles are not going to move off into another direction if rust inducing water particles show up the way birds do if a predator shows up. A better example of "flocking without brains" would be swarms of jellyfish but this too isn't flocking.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23...MUrq8pFAm8

Quote: Birds of a feather flock together and now so do brainless, inanimate blobs. Made of microscopic particles, the artificial swarms could shed light on the mysterious mechanisms behind the natural swarming seen in fish and birds. They might also lead to materials with novel properties like self-healing.

---

Also, if you take a bucket or container full of water and scatter things such as dust or petals on the surface they tend to clump together like a swarm or flock.

Stars 'flock' into galaxies. Galaxies 'flock' into super clusters. And maybe super clusters 'flock'?

(January 25, 2015 at 8:27 am)bennyboy Wrote: That is a false syllogism at the most basic level. All underwater volcanoes we know of are created on Earth-- so that is reason to believe that every underwater volcano in the universe is probably created on Earth, right? It is right, by your logic; however, it is not right by actual logic. You're also cherry-picking. All the complex evolutionary systems we've observed being created are created by carbon-based, Earthbound lifeforms; therefore, there is reason to believe that all complex evolutionary systems in nature are most likely created by carbon-based, Earthbound lifeforms, right? Right by your logic, wrong by actual logic.

The problem with your argument is you are claiming that all underwater volcano exist on earth, but you've only looked at Earth.

---

(January 25, 2015 at 1:56 pm)IATIA Wrote: Stars 'flock' into galaxies. Galaxies 'flock' into super clusters. And maybe super clusters 'flock'?

You do not know what flocking is. Stars do not flock. Stars do not move away when black hole shows up to devour them.

---

(January 25, 2015 at 1:49 pm)StuW Wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23...MUrq8pFAm8

Quote: Birds of a feather flock together and now so do brainless, inanimate blobs. Made of microscopic particles, the artificial swarms could shed light on the mysterious mechanisms behind the natural swarming seen in fish and birds. They might also lead to materials with novel properties like self-healing.

---

Also, if you take a bucket or container full of water and scatter things such as dust or petals on the surface they tend to clump together like a swarm or flock.

No time to read the article, but I will later and post my thoughts. Jellyfish "swarm" but they do not flock. I have a feeling this is like jellyfish swarming.

A group of jellyfish is a Smack not a swarm. :-p