Detecting design or intent in nature

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm is desperately trying to refute this argument by claiming that evolutionary systems are merely procedural generations

I've made no such claim. Own up to your own statements. You're the one that decided a procedural gen was an example of an evolutionary system from which you claim to draw observational support for your assertions. I've been telling you that this was ignorant from the word go...but you don't want to hear that. Is there commanality between procedural gens and evolutionary systems, sure. Are they the same thing? Nope. Unfortunately, that won't work out for you...because then you won't have any "observations" left to claim.

and procedural generations happen all the time in nature without intellects.

by definiton - all procedural generation occurs with no requirement of intellect or intelligence. Doesn't matter where it happens.

I agree that some procedural generations happen in nature without intellects but I also realize that some do not.

Your agreement isn't required, your realization is in error. Procedural gens do not require intellect, there is no room for disagreement, if it requires intellect, it isn't a procedural generation. Nothing more can be said.

When you are playing Skyrim specific procedural generations are being implemented that would likely never occur without intellects.

You're hung up on the artwork and the moving pictures - you don't seem to realize that this is not the procedural generation, but the UI overlay -on top- of the procedural generation. This has all been explained to you multiple times in this thread. "Artwork created by creatures with intellect requires intellect" yeah, -no shit-.

Further, Evolution is more that just a procedural generation.

Then procedural generations aren't support for your claim, weasel. Talk about that "more", tell us how that "more" requires intellect.

It is a process and not all processes can be implemented without intellects. If you agree that evolution is a process and that not all processes can be implemented without intellects, then you should be open to the question of whether evolution is one of those processes which can't be implemented except in the presence of intellects.

I, personally, wont be open to anything you have to say until you can show a little integrity. If you can do that, you'll find me surprisingly accomodating, though I doubt that I'll find reason to reach the conclusion that you have.

Evolution seems to be one of those processes as evidenced by the fact that we never see new evolutionary seems implemented except in the presence of intellects.

Presence is not neccessity. Correlation is not causation. This has already been addressed. Decide whether or not you want to babble about presence or necessity, stop switching back and forth.

If someone wants to present an example of an evolutionary system which has been observed to come into existence without intellects, I would be very happy to see it.

You already have, you were kind enough to present the example yourself.

Last, there are certain specific elements of evolution. They are:

replication
heritable traits
change
selection

Rhythm denies these specific elements of evolution by calling them "weasel words". Why those participating in this thread give him a pass on that is beyond me. When he calls those elements "weasel words" he sounds like a fundamentalist or a Young Earth Creationist who has no understanding of evolution.

I'm saying that you are -using- them as weasel words, not that they are.

I challenged Rhythm to show that procedural gens like river systems include these elements which define evolution. He refuses.....because he can't. Does anyone else want to take up the challenge?

Because I don't have to. You've accepted that a procedural gen is an example an evolutionary system, and you have repeatedly asserted that evolutionary systems require intellect by reference to your observations of procedural gens. That they do not, by definition, is as far as I have to go to show the vapidity of your argument. You can demand that I take whatever silly position you think might be convenient to your argument, but that doesn't mean that I actually will, or that it's required.

Lets cut right to the chase, shall we? This thread is 50 pages long, but it could go 500 - and no matter what's said to you, no matter how many times you are corrected on matters for which there is no possibility of disagreement, you'll continue to issue this "challenge". You'll continue to pretend as if the thread didn't exist. But hey, what do I know...maybe you'll prove me wrong...maybe you will acknowledge that people have been responding to you, maybe you will acknowledge your mistake by making modifications. But 50 pages says you wont.

You're making a case for belief in the existence of a god and you know that I flat out don't give a shit about whether or not a god exists. If you had a good argument I'd say "good for you, go bow if you like". My interest is the conversation, the reasoning, the actual meat, not the fucking fairy you want to saddle up with it. This isn't a case for belief, this isn't even an issue of belief. You're simply not using your argument properly. I'll continue to remind you of this until you do. Don't you -want- to have a proper argument, or have I misread you (seems from this end that having good reason is something you value, even if you're not entirely clear on what good reason is)? Is that at all important, or are you wasting everyone's time, including your own? When it comes to a question of why you believe, better to say "because I do" than this garbage. You're doing the very notion of "god" a disservice with this, understand?

[JuliaL]

Lets cut right to the chase, shall we? This thread is 50 pages long, but it could go 500 - and no matter what's said to you, no matter how many times you are corrected on matters for which there is no possibility of disagreement, you'll continue to issue this "challenge". You'll continue to pretend as if the thread didn't exist.

Yes, because this discussion is yet another instance of the 'get your own dirt joke.'
http://www.puritanboard.com/f52/atheist-...man-74594/


The correlation between observations of intellects and objects they have designed only leads to the conclusion that intellect is required for design if that intellect is in actuality a designed object produced by another intellect. If the intellect in question is a natural object, not requiring an intellect for its generation, then its design products are also natural.

I don't know if you need circularity or special pleading to make the inference that design is required for intellect or intellect is required for design, but from the length of this thread, I lean towards the former.

[Heywood]

If the intellect in question is a natural object, not requiring an intellect for its generation, then its design products are also natural.

By this thinking cars are natural products. When people claim that cars need intellect to exist I think you know very well what they mean.

I don't know if you need circularity or special pleading to make the inference that design is required for intellect or intellect is required for design, but from the length of this thread, I lean towards the former.

Evolved intellects are not necessarily designed intellects. We are not discussing intellects being designed or even evolutionary systems themselves being designed. What we are discussing is do evolutionary systems require intellects and it seems that they do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not by the examples you offered, they don't. You'll need to make some other observations, unless you're content to simply assert that they do.

[Heywood]

Why did nature result in two nuclear forces, one universal law of gravitation, and the electromagnetic force?

---

I'm sure a physicist might have some idea but then I suspect you'll ask "Why?" ad infinitum. Your question is better suited as: "How did evolution of biological forms begin?"; "Is it a rare event?"; and "Can life evolve by a different set of principle interactions?" Nobody knows the answers for the first two and the third seems to be answered in your misguided insistence that humans can moderately imitate the changes they systematize through empirical and philosophical investigation. In fact, we see evolution occur in a variety of analogies to natural selection, including language, and our application of specialized knowledge to different goals, such as in reconstructing genomes or designing computers. In none of these cases is evolution guided by a single intellect---as in language---instead it happens largely accidentally and not by design. The same is true with chemical changes within genes that allow for one species to thrive and thus be specially prone to adaptation, as it becomes suited for successful migration into new environments. In no instance can you or anyone else show that natural selection ever involves anything but the basic forces within an environment interacting with a replicator---but most importantly, nor can you demonstrate what advantage introducing an UNOBSERVED intellect has over chance and necessity, which ARE observed in gene mutation and survival of the fittest. All your analogies to human imitation are simply that, analogies, and fail to adequately apply to natural change in much the same way that gravity doesn't become an intelligent force simply because we can reproduce its effects in simulation.

---

Forces or nature and processes which exist in nature are not the same thing. Your comparison is invalid. The thing about natural processes is generally you find many instances of them and can observe them being implemented on multiple occasions. That is not the case with evolution. The only instances where you can observe the formation of an evolutionary system is not "in nature" but rather only in the presence of intellects. If the atheists participating in this thread were really open minded, this peculiarity should raise questions in their minds.

---

Not by the examples you offered, they don't. You'll need to make some other observations, unless you're content to simply assert that they do.

I am content that the examples I have given are evolutionary systems. If you want to bury your head in the sand and hide from reality....I'm afraid I can't do anything for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am content that the examples I have given are evolutionary systems. If you want to bury your head in the sand and hide from reality....I'm afraid I can't do anything for you.

That's fine, one of the examples just doesn't require intellect, by definition. If you're happy with that example so am I, but it does make the claim that all evolutionary systems require intellect indefensible.

[IATIA]

You just keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over. No matter how many times you say it, intellect is not required. This is exactly the same thing as asserting a god with no proof or evidence. All I get is that you did not see it so we are not here.

[Heywood]

You just keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over. No matter how many times you say it, intellect is not required. This is exactly the same thing as asserting a god with no proof or evidence. All I get is that you did not see it so we are not here.

Thats because you guys keep repeating the same errors over and over again. It is becoming very tedious to continually have to correct you guys.

IATIA you claim that intellects are not required for evolutionary systems to be implemented. Can you provide one example of an evolutionary system which you've seen coming into existence of which there was no involvement whatsoever of an intellect. Just one...that's all I ask. And don't say river systems....cause a river system isn't an evolutionary system.

---

I am content that the examples I have given are evolutionary systems. If you want to bury your head in the sand and hide from reality....I'm afraid I can't do anything for you.

That's fine, one of the examples just doesn't require intellect, by definition. If you're happy with that example so am I, but it does make the claim that all evolutionary systems require intellect indefensible.

All you've done is simply defined yourself a refutation. It doesn't work....it is unconvincing. Not all procedural gens are naturally occurring just like not all configurations of atoms are naturally occurring. Some configurations of atoms need intellect to be implemented. Some procedural gens need intellect to be implemented. Calling an evolutionary system just a procedural generation(a concept you introduced....not me) is like calling a car a configuration of atoms. It doesn't help us one iota in answering the question we are discussing. It is a red herring.

[Chas]

You are equivocating on biological evolution and any other kind of evolution. Evolution requires only chance, variable degrees of persistence through time, and sufficient complexity that one persistent form will be able to interact with other persistent forms. That's it.

Can you give an example of an evolutionary system which satisfies your definition of evolution? Your definition of evolution doesn't refute the case I am making. I can simply say evolutionary systems which contain the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection, seem to require intellect to be present to be implemented.

It only seems that way to you, not to the rest of us who understand that biological evolution doesn't require any intellect to get started or to carry on.

There is simply no need of your hypothesis.

[Heywood]

Can you give an example of an evolutionary system which satisfies your definition of evolution? Your definition of evolution doesn't refute the case I am making. I can simply say evolutionary systems which contain the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection, seem to require intellect to be present to be implemented.

It only seems that way to you, not to the rest of us who understand that biological evolution doesn't require any intellect to get started or to carry on.

There is simply no need of your hypothesis.

Chas I am open to the idea that biological evolution does not require an intellect to get started. You guys are the ones, holding a position simply on stubborn faith and not any objective observation, that biological evolution does not need intellect to get started.

All I am asking is for you guys to back your faith based belief...with some observation. You have none it seems. All you have is your insistence that your are right and I am sorry that isn't sufficient.