Detecting design or intent in nature

[Mudhammam]

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

If by automobile you mean a car that resulted from parts mutating, due to changes in environmental conditions, in each prior generation of models, and natural laws preserving those that allow a minimal threshold of beneficial function, and eliminating those that cause failure, then yes, it would be inappropriate to call the current product "designed by a generic intellect."

[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.

Yes, but gossip is not a system designed to create change. But it does create change. No intellect designed human miscommunication. Chinese Whispers is designed to illustrate human miscommunication and it does.

There's no evidence that natural evolution is a system. Like changes through gossip, it happens because perfect is not possible. Once again. It's not a system, it's the natural consequence of the fact that DNA does not always replicate perfectly.

[Heywood]

Yes, but gossip is not a system designed to create change. But it does create change. No intellect designed human miscommunication. Chinese Whispers is designed to illustrate human miscommunication and it does.

There's no evidence that natural evolution is a system. Like changes through gossip, it happens because perfect is not possible. Once again. It's not a system, it's the natural consequence of the fact that DNA does not always replicate perfectly.

If evolution is not a system then what is it? It is not a force. Evolution doesn't cause particles to alter their movement.

If you want to call it a "process" I'm fine with that. In fact I like that better because a process achieves a particular end.

---

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

If by automobile you mean a car that resulted from parts mutating, due to changes in environmental conditions, in each prior generation of models, and natural laws preserving those that allow a minimal threshold of beneficial function, and eliminating those that cause failure, then yes, it would be inappropriate to call the current product "designed by a generic intellect."

Esquilax's argument is that our intellect is the result of evolution and therefore any intellects we create are ultimately the result of evolution.

The problem with his thinking is he assumes that evolution came first and intellect second. This assumption could be justified if it turned out that evolutionary systems can come into existence without the need of intellects. However once we observe lots of evolutionary systems coming into existence and they all require intellects, we can no longer have any confidence in the assumption that evolutionary systems can come into existence without intellect.

The observations that evolutionary systems seem to require intellects to come into existence suggest that perhaps intellect came first.

[Mudhammam]

Esquilax's argument is that our intellect is the result of evolution and therefore any intellects we create are ultimately the result of evolution.

The problem with his thinking is he assumes that evolution came first and intellect second. This assumption could be justified if it turned out that evolutionary systems can come into existence without the need of intellects. However once we observe lots of evolutionary systems coming into existence and they all require intellects, we can no longer have any confidence in the assumption that evolutionary systems can come into existence without intellect.

The observations that evolutionary systems seem to require intellects to come into existence suggest that perhaps intellect came first.

Yeah, Esquilax is correct. This post though, is probably one of the dumbest and most convoluted representations of otherwise relatively simple concepts I've come across.

[The Grand Nudger]

The problem with his thinking is he assumes that evolution came first and intellect second.

-our intellect...is what came second. This isn't an assumption, it's an observation. The only intellects you have ever observed are a product of evolution.

This thread could have been made much shorter if you'd just lay out your thoughts in the form of a basic syllogism, ever consider that?

[Heywood]

The problem with his thinking is he assumes that evolution came first and intellect second.

-our intellect...is what came second. This isn't an assumption, it's an observation. The only intellects you have ever observed are a product of evolution.

It is an assumption based on one myopic observation. I wouldn't put a lot of confidence in it. The fact that evolutionary systems seem to require intellect makes it even more doubtful.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, it isn't an assumption based upon an observation, myopic or otherwise, it -is- the observation. Evolution predates human intellect, and human intellect is the product of evolution. Period.

Do you actually intend to argue against this?

The fact that evolutionary systems seem to require intellect makes it even more doubtful.

That hasn't become a fact just because it happens to have become your personal form of Tourettes. Put up or shut up.

[Esquilax]

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

My thinking said nothing at all of design, since I was speaking directly to your claims about observations and intelligences. Did you actually read what I wrote? Because I thought it was pretty clear.

Your initial argument was that evolution must be designed, because all the evolutionary systems of which we know the origins were designed. You appeal to observations to make that point, and when anyone else argues with you, your response is to say that we have no observations of naturally occurring evolutionary systems. But if observations are the stopper on arguments for natural evolution, then by the same token, the lack of observations for intellects that did not arise on Earth as part of Earthly evolution also puts a stopper on the argument you're making for Earthly evolution being designed by intellect. If, as you've been saying so far, no observations= no valid argument, then no observations of intellects besides Earthly ones= no valid argument for those, even though that's the argument you're making. One way or another, you're violating the tenets of your own position.

Does it bother you at all, that I've had to simplify my argument so much just to get through to you? Do I need to do it again?

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

The quality of intellect may not be unique to humans, in fact I would say that we know it isn't, given that apes and dolphins and so on exist. But that's also not germane to my argument at all, because my argument is that you have no observations of intellects that did not arise as a result of Earthly evolution, which is still true whether intellect is unique to humans or not, and contradicts your claim that one needs observations in order to make valid arguments. Every time you respond to me you don't even touch the meat of what I'm saying; I wonder why that is?

Incidentally, do you have anything to say- perhaps anything relevant this time- to the problem of regression your argument will inevitably lead to? The one I detailed above? This one:

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.

You know, the one you conspicuously skipped over when responding to me just now?

[bennyboy]

It is an assumption based on one myopic observation. I wouldn't put a lot of confidence in it. The fact that evolutionary systems seem to require intellect makes it even more doubtful.

Luckily, I've missed the first 27 pages of this thread. Based on the OP, it seems to be something about evolution. But this comment shows you don't know what evolution is, or what it requires.

[robvalue]

Evolution is a model, trying to describe as accurately as possible what happens. It's not a system that acts on life forms, it's not an entity with any sort of intent or goals.

Whatever happens with life on our planet, it's part of evolution. Everything we do is just another step of evolution, the fact that we consider ourselves or other things within it "intelligent" is irrelevant.

At best, some external intellect arranged for abiogenesis to happen, and then left it to run from then on. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest any sort of outside influence on what we have found out about evolution. There's also no reason to think an external intelligence was involved in abiogenesis, either. That's mere speculation.