Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

Begging.

The.

Question.


/thread

The argument will be over when you guys can come up with an observation which supports proposition 2(and consequently falsifies proposition 1). There is no begging the question. There is only argumentative somersaults by you and others to try to avoid coming up with an observation which supports proposition 2.

[bennyboy]

Begging.

The.

Question.


/thread

The argument will be over when you guys can come up with an observation which supports proposition 2(and consequently falsifies proposition 1). There is no begging the question. There is only argumentative somersaults by you and others to try to avoid coming up with an observation which supports proposition 2.

*resists desire to flame and post cat memes*

No, dude. The situation is simple. You are making an assertion about nature: that it is designed (i.e. by God). You are dancing in semantic circles, and ignoring the many, many posts in which we explained to you what begging the question is, and in what way you are doing it.

You don't get to demand proof AGAINST your assertion. You are asserting it-- you have to demonstrate that the things you say were created actually were created. And you haven't, because there is no good evidence supporting those assertions. So parrot away about making us accept the BOP and provide proof. I'll provide proof that no intellect created evolution just as soon as you prove that yin/yang or magic fairies didn't do it.

Here's a basic lesson about proving a negative, and about why people who ask for it think they've "won," and about why it's an epic logic fail. Enjoy:

[Angrboda]

What other evolutionary systems besides biological evolution are you seeing? Simulations of evolutionary systems aren't themselves evolutionary systems.

[Surgenator]

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.

I don't want to waste my time arguing the whether evolution is a system or not. I have already demonstrated how evolution doesn't require intellects with the nylon-eating bacteria. From the lack of intellects through out the development of the new ability infers no intellect implemented something.

[Heywood]

*resists desire to flame and post cat memes*

No, dude. The situation is simple. You are making an assertion about nature: that it is designed (i.e. by God). You are dancing in semantic circles, and ignoring the many, many posts in which we explained to you what begging the question is, and in what way you are doing it.

You don't get to demand proof AGAINST your assertion. You are asserting it-- you have to demonstrate that the things you say were created actually were created. And you haven't, because there is no good evidence supporting those assertions. So parrot away about making us accept the BOP and provide proof. I'll provide proof that no intellect created evolution just as soon as you prove that yin/yang or magic fairies didn't do it.

Here's a basic lesson about proving a negative, and about why people who ask for it think they've "won," and about why it's an epic logic fail. Enjoy:

Since you can easily falsify proposition 1 by presenting an example of an observation that supports proposition 2, there is no trying to prove a negative.

You are simply trying to weasel out of providing an observation which supports your worldview in the context of these two propositions.

Maybe your world view is wrong. Have you ever considered that?

---

I don't want to waste my time arguing the whether evolution is a system or not.

There is no argument. I keep telling you evolution is a process. This is just you staw manning in attempt to address the harder argument.

I have already demonstrated how evolution doesn't require intellects with the nylon-eating bacteria. From the lack of intellects through out the development of the new ability infers no intellect implemented something.

We both agree that the process evolution doesn't always require intellects to continue. The question is are intellects required to "jump start" the process? You keep avoiding this question and instead engage in straw manning and obfuscation. Are you afraid of it?

Internal combustion engines require an outside impetus to start. However once that impetus starts the engine it will continue to operate without any external help from the starter. There is nothing unreasonable about exploring the question, Do systems which utilize the process of evolution require intellects to come into existence? I know you have faith in your position that such systems do not always require intellects....but can you back it up with some observation?

That is all I am asking....and it isn't unreasonable.

---

What other evolutionary systems besides biological evolution are you seeing? Simulations of evolutionary systems aren't themselves evolutionary systems.

Simulations of biological evolution, such as the spider sim are real examples of evolution. What is evolving is variables in a computer. The simulation of biological evolution occurs when artwork and the motion/action thereof is directed by those actually evolved variables.

[Creed of Heresy]

The answer to your "proposition 2" about one observable case has been demonstrated over and over again. You keep saying "that doesn't count." You say you refuted it when Stimbo presented it. I did not see it, though I looked through many of your posts (I hope you appreciate the effort I had to put in to wade through over 60 pages of posts to do this) to see if you indeed had.

Maybe I missed it (plausible), but all the same, the only refutations of anything I found were refutations that essentially amounted to a response that is "nuh uh!" If you would repeat it for me, it might help me register the point. May be a rough thing to do, but, again, I DID go through 60 pages of posts to try to locate it myself.

[Heywood]

The answer to your "proposition 2" about one observable case has been demonstrated over and over again. You keep saying "that doesn't count." You say you refuted it when Stimbo presented it. I did not see it, though I looked through many of your posts (I hope you appreciate the effort I had to put in to wade through over 60 pages of posts to do this) to see if you indeed had.

Maybe I missed it (plausible), but all the same, the only refutations of anything I found were refutations that essentially amounted to a response that is "nuh uh!" If you would repeat it for me, it might help me register the point. May be a rough thing to do, but, again, I DID go through 60 pages of posts to try to locate it myself.

We have no observations of the implementation of the evolutionary system which produced Stimbo. Remember we are considering these two very reasonable propositions....both of which cannot be true:

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

Maybe if you consider these two proposition instead it will help you see why Stimbo's observation fails to falsify propostion 1.
Proposition Alpha: All running internal combustion engines required a starter.
Proposition Beta: All running internal combustion engines did not require a starter.

You don't falsify proposition Alpha by providing an observation of a running internal combustion engine. You only falsify proposition Alpha by providing an observation of an internal combustion engine spontaneously beginning to run without the help of starter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Simulations of biological evolution, such as the spider sim are real examples of evolution.

-There's your example, consider your claim disproven. You won't, because you don't actually want or care to receive what you've been asking for. Why then, should anyone care to provide you with it?

[Angrboda]

What other evolutionary systems besides biological evolution are you seeing? Simulations of evolutionary systems aren't themselves evolutionary systems.

Simulations of biological evolution, such as the spider sim are real examples of evolution. What is evolving is variables in a computer. The simulation of biological evolution occurs when artwork and the motion/action thereof is directed by those actually evolved variables.

Because you say so, right? No, simulations are models of the real thing and require intelligence to interpret as models. Without the interpretation, they are just bits. I've studied computer science and you are wrong from top to bottom. Just as a painting of a rose isn't a rose, a simulation of an evolutionary system is not itself an evolutionary system. The code doesn't mutate. The variable registers don't replicate. The processor doesn't apply natural selection. It's an analogue of the real process.

[Cyberman]

I think you're misusing the principle of observation as it pertains to science, Heywood. It doesn't mean you have to see the origin or the cause of a phenomenon. The observation is the identifying of the phenomenon's effect - "hey, that apple just fell to the ground" - which can then be investigated to determine the cause.

Does that cause necessarily suggest intelligence? Such may be revealed to be the case, but we have no justification for assuming that prima facie and subsequently disproving it. That would be absurd.