Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 1, 2015 at 7:37 pm
(February 1, 2015 at 4:22 pm)IATIA Wrote: 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..
It's a strain on the rectum, though.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 2, 2015 at 3:02 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 3:10 am by Heywood.)
(February 1, 2015 at 2:25 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: (January 31, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Chas Wrote: 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.
It most certainly is a system. A system is a set of connected things or parts forming a more complex whole. Evolution is a process that is actually a set of connected sub-processes. Replication is a distinct process, change is a distinct process, and selection is a distinct process. On top of that, those connected processes have to operate on something. When you have those distinct but connected processes operating on something, you have a system. There is nothing wrong with calling the process of evolution(which is really a bunch of connected processes forming a more complex process) operating on things an evolutionary system.
To claim evolution is not a system is absolutely moronic. Some of the "facts" and "counter arguments" given so far are so retarded it makes me wonder if the people who put them out there have to wear helmets on their heads and put corks on the end of their forks.
Rasetsu is about the only one who has come up with half way decent counter argument. I will have a response to her last post soon.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 2, 2015 at 9:49 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 9:56 am by Chas.)
(February 2, 2015 at 3:02 am)Heywood Wrote: Rasetsu is about the only one who has come up with half way decent counter argument. I will have a response to her last post soon.
Rasetsu made the same points as others did.
sys·tem ˈsistəm/
noun
1. a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.
2. a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.
Sure, evolution is a 'system' as in definition 1, but you then try to slip it into definition 2. So your use of 'system' brings nothing but dishonesty to the argument.
Calling evolution a system that requires implementig is presuppositional.
Please explain exactly what in biological evolution needs 'implementing'.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 67295
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 2, 2015 at 9:55 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 9:56 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Hey now Heywood, don't leave yourself out in the backpatting party. You -also- made a good counterargument against your own claims, hell, I'd say you gutted them. Mad props.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 2, 2015 at 4:52 pm
(January 31, 2015 at 5:35 pm)rasetsu Wrote:
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.
To implement an evolutionary system requires putting together the processes of replication, change, and selection in way that they all operate upon a thing. That thing can be a self replicating molecule as in the case of biological evolution, a phrase as in the case of Chinese Whispers, and an automobile as in the case of automobile evolution. There must be a first of the thing which those processes operate. Let us call that first thing in an evolutionary system a "seed".
Perhaps, the role of the intellect in implementing evolutionary systems is that it creates/designs the "seed". I'm not ready to commit to this idea but lets explore it. Since each evolutionary system at some point utilized a "seed" we can say there is a set of all "seeds". The same argument can be employed. Have we ever observed a "seed" which did not require an intellect to come into existence? If when we observe "seeds" coming into existence and find they always require intellects(while never observing one coming into existence not requiring an intellect) doesn't that suggest that all "seeds" require intellect to come into existence? Why don't we see "seeds" coming into existence without requiring intellects today? If we do can you present an observation of such?
I think your point, that we aren't really talking about evolution but something else, is worthy of consideration. I just don't think it refutes the argument.
Posts: 67295
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 2, 2015 at 6:15 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 6:20 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Oh good god, the argument failed for "evolutionary systems" so now it's about "seeds".......maybe that'll take us to 186 pages. Would you like to hear about how this argument fails, by reference to the same observation that your last argument failed on - even after accepting for the sake of conversation that your observations are examples of evolutionary systems -or- "seeds"?
Do you think that a procedural gen will only do work on a seed supplied by an intellect, or that an intellect is required to produce a seed suitable for procedural gen to do work upon? Or do you think I might be able to explain and demonstrate how easily a gen can work on a random "seed" - and how often they -do-?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 2, 2015 at 7:25 pm
(February 2, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Heywood Wrote: Have we ever observed a "seed" which did not require an intellect to come into existence? Yes. I am on my phone so I will have to elaborate later.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 29858
Threads: 116
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 2, 2015 at 8:37 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 8:41 pm by Angrboda.)
(February 2, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Heywood Wrote: I think your point, that we aren't really talking about evolution but something else, is worthy of consideration. I just don't think it refutes the argument.
I wasn't so much trying to refute your argument as to pin down what your conclusion was. Given your recent reply, it would seem that you are arguing that the genesis of "the seed" of biological evolution likely involved intellect.
See what you think of this counter-argument:
1a. Where the operation of Heywood systems is like the operation of biological evolution, the genesis of biological evolution is probably like the genesis of Heywood systems (the "seed");
1b. Where the operation of Heywood systems is unlike the operation of biological evolution, the genesis of biological evolution is probably unlike the genesis of Heywood systems;
2. The operation of Heywood systems is like that of the operation of biological evolution in that it involves replication, heritability, change, and selection;
3. The operation of Heywood systems is unlike that of the operation of biological evolution in that Heywood systems require intellect, whereas biological evolution does not;
Conclusion 1: The genesis of biological systems probably involved replication, heritability, change, and selection. (By 1a and 2)
Conclusion 2: The genesis of biological systems probably did not involve intellect. (by 1b and 3)
Therefore, abiogenesis probably did not involve a creator. (restatement of C2)
Let me know what you think.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 3, 2015 at 4:49 am
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2015 at 4:53 am by Heywood.)
(February 2, 2015 at 8:37 pm)rasetsu Wrote:
See what you think of this counter-argument:
1a. Where the operation of Heywood systems is like the operation of biological evolution, the genesis of biological evolution is probably like the genesis of Heywood systems (the "seed");
1b. Where the operation of Heywood systems is unlike the operation of biological evolution, the genesis of biological evolution is probably unlike the genesis of Heywood systems;
2. The operation of Heywood systems is like that of the operation of biological evolution in that it involves replication, heritability, change, and selection;
3. The operation of Heywood systems is unlike that of the operation of biological evolution in that Heywood systems require intellect, whereas biological evolution does not;
Conclusion 1: The genesis of biological systems probably involved replication, heritability, change, and selection. (By 1a and 2)
Conclusion 2: The genesis of biological systems probably did not involve intellect. (by 1b and 3)
Therefore, abiogenesis probably did not involve a creator. (restatement of C2)
Let me know what you think.
I think there is a fatal problem with premise 3. The spider sim is an example of a Heywood system that requires intellect for its genesis but does not require intellect for its operation. Set up a computer powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator to run the sim and it would continue to run it just fine for quite a long time even if all the intellects were sterilized.
Venter's Mycoplasma Laboratorium is another example of a Heywood system which required intellect for its genesis, but its subsequent evolution does not require intellect. The operation of Heywood systems is sometimes like the operation of biological evolution so premise 3 is false.
(February 2, 2015 at 9:49 am)Chas Wrote: Rasetsu made the same points as others did.
She's an order of magnitude brighter than the rest of you.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 3, 2015 at 5:34 am
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2015 at 5:36 am by Mudhammam.)
(February 3, 2015 at 4:49 am)Heywood Wrote: She's an order of magnitude brighter than the rest of you. How many magnitudes of brightness are required to be a Christian?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
|
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
