(January 30, 2015 at 11:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: . . .of a thread that doesn't exist, if you ask a certain poster. . .

Whose that poster you're talking about? Sounds like a dick.

Ahem.

(January 30, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 6:33 am)Heywood Wrote: There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. You guys reject it because you think somehow that refutes my argument. Are you denying that biological evolution contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection? If you are then you don't really understand biological evolution.

No, but you're missing out the crucial element of reproduction.

(January 30, 2015 at 10:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 10:42 pm)Heywood Wrote: Sorry Benny....it is you who is the idiot because you assume that evolutionary systems whose origins are unknown did not need intellect to be implemented. I hope your daughter does not grow up begging the question as much as her father does.

Does "may or may not" sound like an assumption to you? Not if you speak English, it doesn't. I've made neither assumption nor assertion-- I've only pointed out that the way you are using observations about one kind of thing do not serve as meaningful evidence for another kind of thing. Now, you're not only bad with set theory, you're also a liar.

If all of your observations turn out to be one kind it suggest that there is only one kind. Like I said....you assume the "other animals" are not cats. You assume what you want to believe to be true. The truth is there may not be any other animals....if you only observe cats and mice....that's probably all there is.

---

(January 30, 2015 at 11:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ahem.

(January 30, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No, but you're missing out the crucial element of reproduction.

Replication via reproduction is replication. I am not missing it.

You have given no reason why reproduction is a special case of replication to such a degree that it should be treated differently from other forms of replication.

(January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: Replication via reproduction is replication. I am not missing it.

That's nonsense. Not all offspring are replicas of their parents.

(January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: You have given no reason why reproduction is a special case of replication to such a degree that it should be treated differently from other forms of replication.

You already gave that reason. You are insisting that the definition of evolution you're defending is different to that of biological evolution. Reproduction is the basis of biological evolution. Now, if you want to carry on arguing for your definition to be a form of evolution that's fine, but if you want to argue biological evolution you have to consider all of its definition, otherwise you're fighting a strawman. You cannot equate the two in the way you want.

(January 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: Replication via reproduction is replication. I am not missing it.

That's nonsense. Not all offspring are replicas of their parents.

The offspring of a chicken is a chicken. Chickens are replicated via reproduction. Are you suggesting there are cases like where the offspring of a chicken is an hippopotamus?

(January 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: You have given no reason why reproduction is a special case of replication to such a degree that it should be treated differently from other forms of replication.

You already gave that reason. You are insisting that the definition of evolution you're defending is different to that of biological evolution. Reproduction is the basis of biological evolution. Now, if you want to carry on arguing for your definition to be a form of evolution that's fine, but if you want to argue biological evolution you have to consider all of its definition, otherwise you're fighting a strawman. You cannot equate the two in the way you want.

Negative.

The definition I am using is satisfied by biological evolution so I can equate that system with any other system that also satisfies the definition. Both systems are the same kind of system.....they are both systems which satisfy my definition. If you do not want to call them "evolutionary systems" that is fine...don't call them that. Call them "Heywood systems" instead. It doesn't help you get to a refutation because observations suggest that all Heywood systems require intellect. Basically your still stuck trying to come up with an observation of a Heywood system which does not require intellect to be implemented. You can't weasel out of it by claiming that reproduction is not replication.

Fine. Have fun with your strawman. Yay, you win!

(January 30, 2015 at 11:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: It doesn't help you get to a refutation because observations suggest that all Heywood systems require intellect. Basically your still stuck trying to come up with an observation of a Heywood system which does not require intellect to be implemented. You can't weasel out of it by claiming that reproduction is not replication.

Rebranding things as "Heywood Systems" doesn't change the fact that Heywood systems don't require intellect, and haven't required intellect since the moment you brought up one of your first examples of a Heywood System.

(88, wewt)

(January 30, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: If all of your observations turn out to be one kind it suggest that there is only one kind. Like I said....you assume the "other animals" are not cats.

That's not an assumption, dumbass. It's what "other" means. And we do NOT have observations of one kind. We have observations of two groups: man-made evolutionary systems (by your definition, at least), and non-man-made systems. Of course, man-made ones are "implemented" by intellects, because men have intellects. But it's stupid to say that things not man-made are also most likely made by intellect.

That doesn't mean God didn't make evolution, or make a universe whose properties lead naturally to evolution. It does, however, mean that your "evidence" is a category error, and is not usable in the way you are attempting to use it. Here, try it again:



See? Man-made, and non-man-made. Do you dispute that man-made systems and non-man-made systems are different categories?

But how do you know that blue isn't pink?

(January 31, 2015 at 6:47 am)robvalue Wrote: But how do you know that blue isn't pink?

If you close both your eyes and look at it, it's the same. Conclusion: colors are a government conspiracy.