Detecting design or intent in nature

[Esquilax]

Your "explanation"....if you can call it an explanation.....is the atheist's equivalent to "God works in mysterious ways". Your "explanation" explains nothing and is merely an attempt to hand wave away observations you find uncomfortable to confront.

If it seems that way to you, it's probably due to honest bafflement as to what, exactly, you expect to be happening. The only way we know that human designed evolutionary systems are human designed is because we've witnessed them in the process of design; functionally they work the same as every other evolutionary system, because they were designed to imitate the one we observe in nature.

Put simply, if your claim is true... how would we tell? If it behaves exactly like an already extant evolutionary system, how do we tell it apart from that original system? Furthermore, wouldn't a new evolutionary system require the existence of new life from scratch? I mean, any system that utilizes life that evolved due to the unbroken chain of life we observe in nature would really just be another part of that existing system, wouldn't it? So if what you're asking is why don't we see new abiogenesis events today, I'll point you back to my second answer; the Earth has changed a whole lot since its early prebiotic days, it's very possible the environment has altered so much it's no longer conducive to that.

The problem is twofold: your claim is so vague as to be useless, and it's also totally unfalsifiable. But hey, speaking of handwaving, I do notice you've yet to answer ninety percent of my contentions with your argument here, and the ones you have have been exactly that; handwaving which violates the basic premises of your position.

Interesting, how much you project.

The argument you made is logically sound, it just isn't compelling because you haven't observed very much of reality.

Neither have you; why not just admit that, rather than make self refuting arguments to further ideological goals you'd decided on before examining the evidence? Why do you get to argue against natural evolutionary systems using the "we haven't observed X" argument, but the moment somebody uses it against you, you appeal to a lack of observations as a defense? You've completely inverted the way your position works in order to defend it.

[Heywood]

What is the substantial difference between generic intellect and human intellect? If they are substantially the same thing I don't see what the issue is.

The difference is that you don't have any evidence of generic intellects existing or involving themselves in earthly affairs, which according to your own premises should preclude them from your list of possible origins for evolutionary systems.

They could be functionally identical to human intellects, but if they don't come from Earth, as the product of an Earthly evolutionary system, then you've never seen them before and therefore must eliminate them from the running. It's the flaw in your argument that turns the entire thing into a circular, self refuting mess.

My idea of a generic intellect is essentially the same as a human intellect so I see no need to make the distinction you are asking me to make. If a human intellect can create evolutionary systems....without even attempting it as in the case of Chinese Whispers....what force of nature or obstacle exists that prevents another kind of intellect from doing the same? I know what your going to say....some mysterious force that we just haven't discovered yet....right?

The condition of being human is an artifact of our biology. The condition of being human is not an artifact of intellect. The distinction you are making is irrelevant and you are grasping at straws in an attempt to maintain a belief in something which has never ever been observed. The truth is, you have no good reason whatsoever to believe that evolutionary systems can come into existence sans intellect. You believe it only as a matter of faith and not on some objective observation of reality.

[Jenny A]

You are forgetting a rather simple problem with your sample. All of the intelligently designed evolutionary systems you propose as examples are conscious attempts to copy natural evolution. It's a little like looking at numerous paintings and models of the Niagara Falls and concluding that Niagara Falls must be designed because all of the copies are. If you eliminate evolutionary systems not inspired by natural evolution, you won't have any designed systems at all.

The game Chinese Whispers was not inspired by biological evolution but it is an evolutionary system created by intellects none the less.

I had to look up Chinese Whispers and then laughed, because I've played it as The Telephone Game and as Gossip. The Gossip was its church name because for me because a Sunday school teacher used it to demonstrate how gossips changes as it spreads.

Which made me laugh again, because there is an undesigned evolutionary system, the gossip mill. But you see gossip is not designed to create change as the story relayed. The change just happens, and what makes the most interesting or shocking story without being completely unbelievable tends to emerge. And that is the point. The gossip mill is not a system to create change anymore than natural evolution is a system. Change happens because humans have a natural tendency to make up stories and embellish real ones. Oral history changes in much the same way.

The Bible, and other transcribed works, change overtime due to transcription error.

Transcription error does not a system make. Natural evolution is not a system to create animal change. It simply is what happens when there is transcription error/borrowing in DNA.

I could program a gravity and planetary motion simulator (actually I'm sure there are some simulators already). Then we'd have gravity simulators and the only ones which are not the universe would all be designed by intellect. Would that prove gravity and inertia is a designed system? Can you not see the problem with that?

Gravity is not a system. It is a force of nature believed to be carried by the graviton.

And natural evolution is the result of the imperfectness of DNA replication. Next.

[The Grand Nudger]

which is why we don't see computers spontaneously appearing in thin air

A leaf has a small pool of water running down the middle of the vein. If a single drop of water lands on the top right side of the leaf nothing happens. If two drops of water land on the leaf, one on the top right, one the bottom left - the balance off the leaf is shifted -the water pooling along the vein will spill. Voila, computers appearing out of thin air. That's an and gate with a single bit of memory. Now imagine that there are a bunch of leafs all piled around each other (you know..like in a tree) - voila.... robust cpus and memory appearing out of thin air. Also, there are some good jokes to be had here about memory leaks.

We -do- see computers appearing out of thin air, and without intellect, for the same reasons that we see evolutionary systems appearing "out of thin air" and without intellect (and for the same reasons that we see intellects building computers - and simulations of evolutionary systems within them). There's no reason to give Heywood an inch. PST.....chinese whispers is in the same camp. What we have here is an idiot who sees something that he doesn't understand, and is so impressed by his own ignorance and the magic before him, his mind immediately wanders off to "god". No explanation of what he sees will be sufficient, no matter how accurate - because it doesn't yield the answer he wants.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='Jenny A' pid='837870' dateline='1420607755']
I could program a gravity and planetary motion simulator (actually I'm sure there are some simulators already). Then we'd have gravity simulators and the only ones which are not the universe would all be designed by intellect. Would that prove gravity and inertia is a designed system? Can you not see the problem with that?

Gravity is not a system. It is a force of nature believed to be carried by the graviton.

Evolution is more akin to a force than a system.

It is merely whatever helps one animal breed and another not.
Longer legs, bigger lungs, not standing by the tiger, you get the idea.

You don't have to invoke anything extra, but by the lord Harry I'm sure you'll try, because you believe so hard and want others to join in so your view wont seem quite so silly.

[Esquilax]

My idea of a generic intellect is essentially the same as a human intellect so I see no need to make the distinction you are asking me to make. If a human intellect can create evolutionary systems....without even attempting it as in the case of Chinese Whispers....what force of nature or obstacle exists that prevents another kind of intellect from doing the same? I know what your going to say....some mysterious force that we just haven't discovered yet....right?

No, you're missing my point, which is that your own argument prevents you from appealing to generic intellects at all. You haven't observed any intellect that hasn't originated as a part of the one, unbroken chain of evolution occurring on Earth, and earlier on, you were using a lack of observations to argue against evolutionary systems existing by means other than intelligence. You literally said to me earlier, that arguing for the existence of natural evolution contradicts the observations we've made, and you framed that as a rebuttal to me.

Well, guess what? The existence of generic intellects also contradicts the observations that we've made, as do your claims of a designer, since the only intellects we've ever observed have been products of evolutionary systems occurring here on Earth. When I pointed that out to you, you handwaved, in the process inverting your entire argument by pointing to our lack of observations of the universe as a reason to accept the existence of generic intellects occurring without an evolutionary system. So which is it, Heywood? Are observations absolutely required to come to conclusions, as you want them to be when arguing against me? Or is the lack of observations not only okay, but preferred, as you want it to be when defending your own arguments?

You can't hold everyone you disagree with to a set of standards, and then disregard them all in favor of positions you hold, dude.

The condition of being human is an artifact of our biology. The condition of being human is not an artifact of intellect. The distinction you are making is irrelevant and you are grasping at straws in an attempt to maintain a belief in something which has never ever been observed.

You know what else has never been observed? Intellects arising that are not the product, either directly or indirectly, of evolutionary systems. So what you're arguing for, based on observations, is that evolutionary systems arise via intellect, but based on observations it's equally true that we have no examples of of intellects arising without an evolutionary system as the source. You're arguing for a self refuting position in yet another way, as if all evolutionary systems are based in intellects, as you claim, then eventually you'd need to be positing the existence of an evolutionary system that was born of an intellect that didn't require one to come into being, contradicting your claim to only be working from observations. On the other hand, if you're willing to bear out your argument consistently, then eventually, by necessity, you'd need to find an original evolutionary system that did not require intelligence to exist, that arose naturally, in order to give rise to this chain of intellect-based evolutionary systems that you claim to observe.

Either way, your argument is fucked.

The truth is, you have no good reason whatsoever to believe that evolutionary systems can come into existence sans intellect. You believe it only as a matter of faith and not on some objective observation of reality.

So what's the answer to the above, Heywood? Do you believe in the existence of intellects that did not come about through evolutionary systems through faith? Or do you believe in naturally occurring evolutionary systems through faith? You have to pick one; your own argument demands it. It just so happens that doing so also breaks your argument, but then, that's a problem for you, and not me.

Because my position, as I've said multiple times, is that I don't know the origins of all evolutionary systems, so I also don't need to hide behind multiply contradictory arguments in order to make a case.

[Heywood]

[quote='Jenny A' pid='837870' dateline='1420607755']
I could program a gravity and planetary motion simulator (actually I'm sure there are some simulators already). Then we'd have gravity simulators and the only ones which are not the universe would all be designed by intellect. Would that prove gravity and inertia is a designed system? Can you not see the problem with that?

Gravity is not a system. It is a force of nature believed to be carried by the graviton.

Evolution is more akin to a force than a system.

It is merely whatever helps one animal breed and another not.
Longer legs, bigger lungs, not standing by the tiger, you get the idea.

You don't have to invoke anything extra, but by the lord Harry I'm sure you'll try, because you believe so hard and want others to join in so your view wont seem quite so silly.

In physics a force is something that causes a change in an object's motion. Evolution is not a force. Evolution is a system because it contains different elements which together make a more complex whole. Elements of evolution are replication, heritability, change or mutation, and selection.

To Jenny A,

The game "Chinese Whispers" is an evolutionary system because it has all the elements of an evolutionary system. Information is passed on from one person to the next. This is replication and heritability. Small changes or mutations occur in the message. Which are either selected to be passed on or not.

"Chinese Whispers" would not exist unless intellect exists. Intellect is required to either design the system or to be a selection component in the system.

[The Grand Nudger]

The game "Chinese Whispers" is an evolutionary system because it has all the elements of an evolutionary system. Information is passed on from one person to the next. This is replication and heritability. Small changes or mutations occur in the message. Which are either selected to be passed on or not.

-and what about the imperfect transmission of information requires an intellect? As has been explained to you many times, you've been confusing presence with necessity. Correlation with causation.

[Heywood]

No, you're missing my point, which is that your own argument prevents you from appealing to generic intellects at all. You haven't observed any intellect that hasn't originated as a part of the one, unbroken chain of evolution occurring on Earth, and earlier on, you were using a lack of observations to argue against evolutionary systems existing by means other than intelligence. You literally said to me earlier, that arguing for the existence of natural evolution contradicts the observations we've made, and you framed that as a rebuttal to me.

Using this thinking, a automobile would be undesigned because it originated as part of one unbroken chain of evolution occuring on earth.

Well, guess what? The existence of generic intellects also contradicts the observations that we've made, as do your claims of a designer, since the only intellects we've ever observed have been products of evolutionary systems occurring here on Earth. When I pointed that out to you, you handwaved, in the process inverting your entire argument by pointing to our lack of observations of the universe as a reason to accept the existence of generic intellects occurring without an evolutionary system. So which is it, Heywood? Are observations absolutely required to come to conclusions, as you want them to be when arguing against me? Or is the lack of observations not only okay, but preferred, as you want it to be when defending your own arguments?

You are conflating the quality of being human with the quality of intellect. The are different things entirely.

---

The game "Chinese Whispers" is an evolutionary system because it has all the elements of an evolutionary system. Information is passed on from one person to the next. This is replication and heritability. Small changes or mutations occur in the message. Which are either selected to be passed on or not.

-and what about the imperfect transmission of information requires an intellect? As has been explained to you many times, you've been confusing presence with necessity. Correlation with causation.

In the case of Chinese Whispers, intellect is a component of the selection mechanism.

Now that you know what the elements of an evolutionary system are, it should be easy for you to identify one coming into existence that either was undesigned or does not use intellect as a component. That is of course....if such systems exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

In the case of Chinese Whispers, intellect is a component of the selection mechanism.

It actually isn't. Even if they tried, they'd still get it wrong. That they can use their intellect as a selective agent does not mean that their intellect is required as a selective agent (or even that their intellect is selecting what gets transmitted). That's part of the fun of the game. Have you ever played? Again, what about intellect is a requirement?

Now that you know what the elements of an evolutionary system are, it should be easy for you to identify one coming into existence that either was undesigned or does not use intellect as a component. That is of course....if such systems exist.

Are we going to do this again? Find your shame.