Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chas]

You are the one making the claim that intellect is required.

I am making these claims:
Claim A: Only one of the following two propositions can be true:

• Proposition 1: All evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented
  
• Proposition 2: Not all evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.
  

Claim B: Observational evidence exists to support proposition 1.
Claim C: No observational evidence exists to support proposition 2.

Now lets look at the claims. Claim A is obviously true because if one proposition is true it excludes the other. Claim B, Five Observations have been presented to support this claim. Claim C, We've looked for observational evidence to support this claim and have found none.

Conclusion: I conclude the observational evidence suggest proposition 1 is more likely to be true than proposition 2.

Your claims are utter bullshit because they are based on utter bullshit.

There is no system.

---

"Things made by humans require the involvement of humans"
- "no shit".

I started to look for evolutionary systems which are not the result of human intellect but rather animal intellect. I can't think of any systems which animal intellects implement. However, animals do use evolution. A squirrel uses evolution to work around the obstacles placed before it to prevent it from robbing bird feeders. It does this by making repeated attempts at the course(replication). Its memory is the heritable characteristic. In each attempt it strategy changes a bit(change). It rejects changes which don't further the goal(selection).

This squirrel had to make many attempts to solve this obstacle course:

---

---

No, squirrels do not 'use' evolution. You really do not understand what evolution entails.

---

Automobiles do not evolve. Automobiles come from automobile factories. Automobiles do not grow up to be automobile factories. Automobile factories do not mate with other factories to make automobiles.

Evolution doesn't require self reproduction only replication. If you think evolution requires self reproduction you do not understand evolution. Memetic evolution is a concept that has been around longer than you have been alive and memes do not self reproduce....but they do evolve. Why? Because they are replicated.

Nope. Evolution requires replication of replicators.

As an example of evolution without intellect, how about bacteria evolving to consume plastics or nylon. In both cases, humans didn't do any selection process or genetic engineering. This wasn't done is some science lab. The only thing humans did was throw away trash.

You are giving an example of the system of biological evolution. We have no observations of this system being implemented. It fails to support proposition 2.

There is no system.

Your whole thesis is presuppositional and circular. You assume, with no justification or basis, that evolution is a 'system', and 'systems' require implementation.

[Simon Moon]

There is no system.

Your whole thesis is presuppositional and circular. You assume, with no justification or basis, that evolution is a 'system', and 'systems' require implementation.

This is a refutation of his argument in a nutshell.

He won't be able to see it, but there it is.

[Surgenator]

Apparently

Surge, you're a pretty smart guy. Maybe you can do what no else so far in this thread has been able to do. Present an observation of the implementation of an evolutionary system which did not require an intellect. If you didn't observe the system being implemented but only believe it was implemented sans intellect as a matter of faith....that doesn't count. Faith based statements do not falsify proposition 1, only actual observations.

All it takes to falsify proposition 1 is one observation. Can you find that observation? If you can't find it can you be honest enough to state that no such observations are known to exist?

I'm sure you are familiar with what a control is in the scientific sence. If I take one batch and split in two, A and B. I do not do anything to A, and change something to B. If B develops a new ability that A does not have, then my change caused B to change. This is basic exeperimental setup with a control. At no point in the experiment do I have to observe how B developed the new ability. I only have to point out that a new ability exist that is not in the control group.

This is what happened in the nylon eating bacteria. You have the same bacteria, one is the nylon waste water and the other is in not. The one in the waste developed the ability to eat nylon. The one that wasn't in the waste doesn't have that ability.

[Heywood]

If I take the nylon example, the bacteria in the waste water pond develops the ability to break up a compound that NEVER EXISTED on planet earth before. The bacteria's cousins (non-waste water version) do not have this ability. So what do you conclude, an intelligence secretly engineered these bacteria to eat nylon? Or, did the bacteria evolved the property itself?

You are making a straw man argument. You are providing an observation of an evolutionary system operating without the involvement of an intellect. However the argument you are tasked with defeating is completely different....and the observation you presented doesn't address it. You are tasked with presenting an observation of the implementation of an evolutionary system that did not require an intellect.

I agree that many evolutionary systems do not require the involvement of intellect once implemented. The spider sim example of one which does not require an intellect once implemented. In the spider sim the intellect sets up the system, then the intellect sits back and watches it run.

Remember that the claim you are addressing is Claim A: Only one of the following two propositions can be true:
Proposition 1: All evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented
Proposition 2: Not all evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.

You are tasked with providing an observation that supports proposition 2. If the observation you present doesn't concern itself with implementation it fails to address either of the propositions.

There are no observations of the implementation of biological evolution that did not require intellect. The only observation of a biological system of evolution coming into existence is the one intellect Craig Venter and his team implemented.

[Surgenator]

If I take the nylon example, the bacteria in the waste water pond develops the ability to break up a compound that NEVER EXISTED on planet earth before. The bacteria's cousins (non-waste water version) do not have this ability. So what do you conclude, an intelligence secretly engineered these bacteria to eat nylon? Or, did the bacteria evolved the property itself?

You are making a straw man argument. You are providing an observation of an evolutionary system operating without the involvement of an intellect. However the argument you are tasked with defeating is completely different....and your the observation you presented doesn't address it. You are tasked with presenting an observation of the implementation of an evolutionary system that did not require an intellect.

I agree that many evolutionary systems do not require the involvement of intellect once implemented. The spider sim example of one which does not require an intellect once implemented. In the spider sim the intellect sets up the system, then the intellect sits back and watches it run.

Remember that the claim you are addressing is Claim A: Only one of the following two propositions can be true:
Proposition 1: All evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented
Proposition 2: Not all evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.

You are tasked with providing an observation that supports proposition 2. If the observation you present doesn't concern itself with implementation it fails to address either of the propositions.

There are no observations of the implementation of biological evolution that did not require intellect. The only observation of a biological system of evolution coming into existence is the one intellect Craig Venter and his team implemented.

First off, Chas is correct that evolution is not a system.
Second, I pointed out an obervation where no intellect was involved and yet see an overall change. If no intellect was involved, then no intellect was needed to implement the change. The lack of an intellect is inferred from the observations.

[Heywood]

First off, Chas is correct that evolution is not a system.
Second, I pointed out an obervation where no intellect was involved and yet see an overall change. If no intellect was involved, then no intellect was needed to implement the change. The lack of an intellect is inferred from the observations.

Evolution itself is a process. Processes can be components in systems. Any system which uses the process of evolution can be called an evolutionary system. Claiming that evolutionary systems do not exist because evolution itself is not a system is like claiming eco-systems do not exist because ecology is not a system.

The point Chas made was so ridiculous that I didn't bother to address. I have to now because you guys are hanging your hat on it instead of simply presenting an observation which supports proposition 2. You guys are really scrapping the barrel now and still coming up with nothing.

[Chas]

First off, Chas is correct that evolution is not a system.
Second, I pointed out an obervation where no intellect was involved and yet see an overall change. If no intellect was involved, then no intellect was needed to implement the change. The lack of an intellect is inferred from the observations.

Evolution itself is a process. Processes can be components in systems. Any system which uses the process of evolution can be called an evolutionary system. Claiming that evolutionary systems do not exist because evolution itself is not a system is like claiming eco-systems do not exist because ecology is not a system.

The point Chas made was so ridiculous that I didn't bother to address. I have to now because you guys are hanging your hat on it instead of simply presenting an observation which supports proposition 2. You guys are really scrapping the barrel now and still coming up with nothing.

So is evolution a system or a process? Please support your answer.

Evolution is the inevitable result of the differential reproductive success of imperfect replication of replicators.
It is utterly without design.

[Surgenator]

First off, Chas is correct that evolution is not a system.
Second, I pointed out an obervation where no intellect was involved and yet see an overall change. If no intellect was involved, then no intellect was needed to implement the change. The lack of an intellect is inferred from the observations.

Evolution itself is a process. Processes can be components in systems. Any system which uses the process of evolution can be called an evolutionary system. Claiming that evolutionary systems do not exist because evolution itself is not a system is like claiming eco-systems do not exist because ecology is not a system.

The point Chas made was so ridiculous that I didn't bother to address. I have to now because you guys are hanging your hat on it instead of simply presenting an observation which supports proposition 2. You guys are really scrapping the barrel now and still coming up with nothing.

Evolution is not a system just like accidents are not a system.

[Heywood]

Evolution itself is a process. Processes can be components in systems. Any system which uses the process of evolution can be called an evolutionary system. Claiming that evolutionary systems do not exist because evolution itself is not a system is like claiming eco-systems do not exist because ecology is not a system.

The point Chas made was so ridiculous that I didn't bother to address. I have to now because you guys are hanging your hat on it instead of simply presenting an observation which supports proposition 2. You guys are really scrapping the barrel now and still coming up with nothing.

Evolution is not a system just like accidents are not a system.

Yeah, I said that. I said evolution is a process. Systems which use the process of evolution can be called evolutionary systems. You can't find observations which support proposition 2. Instead of being honest with yourself and coming to grips with the fact that there are certain observations(or lack thereof) of reality which conflict with your world view, you are trying to find fault with the propositions. This nit picking is really grasping at straws.

If you don't like "system" then toss it out. It doesn't help you. Consider these two propositions instead:

Proposition 1: all initial implementations of the process of evolution require intellects.
Proposition 2: all initial implementations of the process of evolution do not require intellects.

Please present an observation which supports the modified proposition 2. Your bacteria example doesn't work because you did not observe the initial implementation of that process which resulted in bacteria eating nylon.

[bennyboy]

Begging.

The.

Question.

Is.

Bad.

Logic.

---

Evolution is not a system just like accidents are not a system.

Yeah, I said that. I said evolution is a process. Systems which use the process of evolution can be called evolutionary systems. You can't find observations which support proposition 2. Instead of being honest with yourself and coming to grips with the fact that there are certain observations(or lack thereof) of reality which conflict with your world view, you are trying to find fault with the propositions. This nit picking is really grasping at straws.

If you don't like "system" then toss it out. It doesn't help you. Consider these two propositions instead:

Proposition 1: all initial implementations of the process of evolution require intellects.
Proposition 2: all initial implementations of the process of evolution do not require intellects.

Please present an observation which supports the modified proposition 2. Your bacteria example doesn't work because you did not observe the initial implementation of that process which resulted in bacteria eating nylon.

Proposition 3: all initial implementations of the process of evolution require yin/yang.
Proposition 4: all initial implementations of the process of evolution do not require yin yang.
Proposition 5: all initial implementations of the process of evolution require a 12th dimension.
Proposition 6: all initial implementations of the process of evolution do not require a 12th dimension.

Prove that Propositions 4 and 6 are false. You can't. Why oh why can't you understand that making shit up and then demanding that someone disprove your made-up shit is a logic fail?