(January 31, 2015 at 3:59 pm)Heywood Wrote: You can't know that the speed of light is constant until you measure the speed of every photon that exists or has existed in the entire universe. That is impossible. At some point you measure enough and call it good.

The fact is, the observational evidence thus far supports the proposition that all evolutionary systems require intellect.

The photon is a member of a set, not a set. Now, does every similar particle propagate at the speed of light? All that we have checked, but that does not mean all that exist propagate at 'c'.

(January 31, 2015 at 7:05 am)Heywood Wrote: Niether you nor anyone else have never presented an observation of an evolutionary systems which contains the elements: Replication, Heritiable traits, Change, and Selection which was also observed coming into existence without the need of an intellect.

(emphasis added)

The text in green speaks to an analogy with biological evolution. The text in blue speaks to an analogy with abiogenesis. Which does your conclusion speak to, abiogenesis or evolution, or both? Because if it is drawing upon an analogy to evolution, we already know that evolution doesn't require the intervention of an intellect. If your conclusion is about abiogenesis, then your analogy is flawed in multiple ways. First, we don't know that the parallels between the genesis of Heywood systems resemble those of the genesis of biological evolutionary systems. Second, you don't know what the essential elements of abiogenesis are, so you can't draw an analogy to an unknown; perhaps replication, heritability, change and selection encapsulate the necessary ingredients of that process, perhaps not. You don't know what the genesis of biological life looked like, so it's impossible to say if your analogous Heywood systems are even relevant.

(January 31, 2015 at 3:34 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 3:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: But if you are trying to show that biological evolution itself (or anything else in the universe) was created by an intellect, then the updated chart should clearly show why you can't use evidence about human- (or now animal-) created evolutionary systems:

Your chart is wrong. Your conclusion is wrong. Let me explain it this way. Lets define evolutionary system as any system which contains the elements replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. There is some set which contains all the evolutionary systems. Lets call this the "Big Set". Now it is possible that the Big Set only contains evolutionary systems which required intellect. It is also possible that the Big Set contains a mixture of evolutionary systems....some which required intellect and some didn't.

Right. "Evolutionary Systems" IS the "Big Set," and always has been. It consists of those systems which are known to be implemented by intellect (under your definition of that word), and those systems which are not known to be implemented by intellect. The latter COULD be implemented by God, or Space Monkey Bobo, or just be a natural interaction of the 4 elemental forces in the universe.

Quote:Which condition is more likely to be true?

Each time you examine an element of the Big Set you can say one of three things about that element.
A) the element required intellect.
B) the element did not require intellect.
C) whether or not the element required intellect cannot be determined.

What I am arguing is that each time you examine an element from the Big Set and it turns out it required intellect, while never coming across an element which did not require an intellect, the likelihood that all the elements in the Big Set required an intellect increases.

Let's say there is a single grain of sand on a table, placed by a 3rd party. However, it is hidden under a napkin, so we cannot see its color. I pose to you the question, "Which is more likely true: that the grain is white or that it is not?" I now start dropping white grains of sand on the table, one after the other, until there are many thousands of them. You would say, "In the Big Set of all grains of sand on this table, there are now 100,000 grains of sand and 99,999 of them are known to be white-- therefore the remaining one is almost certainly white as well." I can contrive to pile millions and millions of grains of sand in this way, and you will get more and more excited, because you will feel more and more confident that you know what's under the napkin: a white grain.

I hope I can meet you sometime, and that you like gambling.

Quick point: science doesn't claim to know anything with absolute certainty. Science provides the best possible model based on available evidence. That is why science (unlike religion, cheap shot pow) can improve, because it can be shown wrong. As soon as there is evidence contradicting the theory that the speed of light is a constant about 3x10^8 m/s then the theory will be reworked. But that theory is put in place by huge amounts of positive evidence in the first place, not by a claim that it cannot be proved wrong. That is not science, it is an argument from ignorance. But who cares about logical fallacies? Who even knows what they are?

(January 31, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Chas Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: And the first time you guys present an evolutionary system which was observed not to require intellect, my argument is falsified. Science, in a word....barring error of course.

Your arguments show that you do not understand biological evolution.
You misunderstand it at its very core.

It is not a system.

It is the inevitable outcome of imperfect replication of replicators.

It needs no implementation.

Your argument is bollocks.

I made this point many many pages ago to have it ignored.

(February 1, 2015 at 2:25 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I made this point many many pages ago to have it ignored.

There are pages and pages of that same response to Heywood. The problem is that we are using facts and evidence rather than faith and assumptions.

(February 1, 2015 at 2:28 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 2:25 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I made this point many many pages ago to have it ignored.

There pages and pages of that same response to Heywood. The problem is that we are using facts and evidence rather than faith and assumptions.

Fuddy duddy, who needs facts when you can simply make shit up?

Making shit up! It's easier and faster than science, and no pesky fallacies to worry about. No research, no knowledge needed. Just make it up, and you're home and dry. And don't worry, they can't prove you wrong (unless you go a bit too far...) so you must be right. Come to our "making it up" class, and get your certificate in just 5 minutes.

It saves energy too! Brain power (no thinking), bandwidth (no research), less wear and tear on the keyboard (no googling), less typing (no carpal tunnel), etc..

(February 1, 2015 at 3:23 pm)robvalue Wrote: Making shit up! It's easier and faster than science, and no pesky fallacies to worry about. No research, no knowledge needed. Just make it up, and you're home and dry. And don't worry, they can't prove you wrong (unless you go a bit too far...) so you must be right. Come to our "making it up" class, and get your certificate in just 5 minutes.

Now, now!

Let's be fair here. I think from the length and quality of Heywood's post that it's clear he has spent a great deal of effort in making it the best possible made-up shit that he can. I mean, he's come up with at least a half dozen ways in which basic set theory isn't what everyone knows it to be, and in which his unsupported assertions about Sky Daddy seem logical to him. He's also managed to accuse others of logical fallacies that he is so clearly guilty of that the hypocrisy ripples through all of reality.

That's quite an achievement, and he should be applauded for it.