Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
January 23, 2015 at 10:20 pm (This post was last modified: January 23, 2015 at 10:21 pm by Chas.)
(January 23, 2015 at 10:14 pm)Heywood Wrote:
(January 23, 2015 at 10:05 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I'm well acquainted with how these simulations work. I studied computer science in college as well as higher mathematics. I've been working with computers for 35 years. A simulated hurricane is still not a real hurricane, no matter how many analogies between the two you can find.
The process is an evolutionary process if it contains the elements of evolutionary processes. Those elements are:
The process that is being carried out in the computer contains those elements, therefore it is reasonable to call the process being carried out in the computer evolutionary.
The evolution of cars was not carried out a computer but is evolution non the less because it contains the elements of evolution.
Cars are replicated on the assembly line(replication)
Their form is determined by a design(heritable characteristic).
The design is changed slightly from model year to model year(change).
If the market doesn't like the design change it is discarded(selection).
Nope. Replicators must be replicated.
(January 23, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Heywood Wrote:
(January 23, 2015 at 10:12 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Cars don't evolve either. You're playing on things that are analogous to evolution, not things that are examples of evolution. Biological evolution is what you're targeting, but you're all over the map with similar=same. All the word evolution means is change. Outside the strict model of biological evolution, you are talking analogies. Not identities.
I jumped in late. What 5 systems were given.
It seems that you are rejecting any definition of evolution that isn't strictly the biological evolutionary system which produced us. Your saying cars didn't evolve because they are not biological entities. Why is that only biological entities can evolve? Why can't things other than biological entities be subject to the process of evolution?
The 5 systems were:
The spider sim
Tribes
Cars
Chinese Whispers(a game played in classrooms)
Medical specialties
None of those are isomorphic to biological evolution. Not even close.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
(January 23, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote:
(January 23, 2015 at 9:52 pm)Heywood Wrote: The Miller-Urey experiment and its extensive successor experiments never resulted in the process of evolution getting "kicked started".
Good try, but this observation fails to support proposition 2.
Aaactually, yes it did. It proved the chemical origin of life.
From whence the chemistry came, came the RNA, came the DNA. How do we know this? How is it observed?
Well, for one thing, if it hadn't, you and me would not be sitting here talking right now and Earth would be a very boring place, indeed. We have the start of evolution in the creation of RNA through the materials present on Earth in its infancy proven. In other words we have evolution at its very beginning; the evolution of the inorganic into the organic. We have the demonstration of evolutionary changes in the ecosphere.
Start and middle, and eventually the end, but that's for the future and not the present.
I dunno how you get that it wasn't observed. XD That's precisely what happened. That's like me making a spark with flint and tinder, embers beginning, me leaving for a few moments, coming back, and a fire merrily roaring in the firepit and you saying "you didn't observe the process of the fire burning." I sure did, actually. I didn't watch the fire grow, but the embers were there and they were starting to burn when I went off to get more firewood and when I came back the fire was burning. What logical conclusion otherwise could come to be?
Do or do not. There is no try. And I did not try. I did.
It did not, no chemical process conducted in the laboratory ever resulted in the coming into existence of life. Miller-Urey demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could form(and it is now believed they got the conditions of early earth wrong).
But suppose a chemical process is done in the laboratory that results in life. All that proves is that life can come into existence under the supervision of intellects within a laboratory. It does not prove that life can come into existence without intellects. To prove that life can come into existence without intellects you need to observe the reaction you created happening in the laboratory....outside the laboratory in conditions nature established.
I'm not even asking you to reach that bar. I am just asking you to show me an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence which does not require intellect.
(January 23, 2015 at 7:37 pm)Surgenator Wrote: 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.
(January 23, 2015 at 7:37 pm)Surgenator Wrote: 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?
Are you saying if nylon was dropped in the puddle via earthquake, then the bacteria wouldn't be able to evolve to the ability to eat it? But since it was drop via factory hose, then the bacteria was able to evolve. Or do you think that the bacteria was already evolving to eat nylon before nylon existed? The only option that doesn't sound ridiculous is the bacteria evolved the ability by itself independent of the method the nylon got to it.
The M-UE did get the early conditions possibly wrong. That said, the materials necessary at the time existed, and numerous other possible mixes of the amounts have also resulted in amino acids being created, meaning that while the specific variables may not be precise, they seem to result in the same result very often; meaning absolute precision is not required. Now, the problem is you are asking is that we somehow make a scientific observation, without the application of science. The problem with this is you are asking for us to seek the beginning of evolution in an environment in which evolution already has happened, and the original environment in which it started no longer exists. The bar is actually far too high. Impossibly high, in fact. The conditions for organic life to come into existence can only be replicated in a laboratory environment. However, the laboratory environment is the recreation of that environment, meaning it demonstrated how it happened in the past. In essence, it is looking back in time by constructing an experiment that uses what we know of early Earth's environment, and letting it do its own thing. The materials that were there in Earth's infancy are placed together, and we see it happen. As amino acids are the very basis for the DNA virtually all Terran life uses, and the process of biological evolution is observed all the time, then the only conclusion is that evolution came into being without intelligent basis.
I've given you your proof. Whether or not you like it, it is an observation of that non-intelligent evolution. Whether or not it is replicated by intelligence means nothing; it is simply a reproduction of what happened, a demonstration of what happened to begin the process of evolution.
January 24, 2015 at 6:42 am (This post was last modified: January 24, 2015 at 6:52 am by Heywood.)
(January 23, 2015 at 10:20 pm)Chas Wrote: None of those are isomorphic to biological evolution. Not even close.
How does this claim help you? Biological evolution and those things all fit the definition I gave. They are all isomorphic with the reasonable definition I presented. Is the definition broad? Yes it is a broad definition, but a narrower definition of evolution would only make it harder for you to find an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence without an intellect. The more broad the definition, the easier it should be for you to find a system that conforms with the definition that was observed not to come into existence with out an intellect. Rhythm knows this that is why he wants to define evolution as "procedural generation". His definition is so broad its utterly useless. Its like saying cars are not always the product of intellects because they are collections of atoms and not all collections of atoms are products of intellect.
I've been reading this for ages and I still have no idea what heywood is trying to say. All I can see is continual misunderstanding of what evolution is.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(January 24, 2015 at 6:45 am)robvalue Wrote: God = unreal = i
God*god = -1
Does that help?
I've been reading this for ages and I still have no idea what heywood is trying to say. All I can see is continual misunderstanding of what evolution is.
Should be easy enough for you to copy and paste the definition of evolution I am using and make a case that it is wrong.
What you wrote above has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing. It is simply shit salad.
January 24, 2015 at 6:51 am (This post was last modified: January 24, 2015 at 6:52 am by robvalue.)
I've pointed out a long time ago that your argument, even if valid, only gets you to "some sort of intelligence" which is not anywhere near God, whatever that's supposed to be. So what is the point of this may I ask?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(January 23, 2015 at 10:42 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Are you saying if nylon was dropped in the puddle via earthquake, then the bacteria wouldn't be able to evolve to the ability to eat it? But since it was drop via factory hose, then the bacteria was able to evolve. Or do you think that the bacteria was already evolving to eat nylon before nylon existed? The only option that doesn't sound ridiculous is the bacteria evolved the ability by itself independent of the method the nylon got to it.
Dropping nylon into a puddle of evolving bacteria is not implementing a new evolutionary system. It is dropping nylon into an existing evolutionary system.
Suppose an earthquake happened in a chemistry lab. Lots of different chemicals accidentally mix and just by shear happenstance, they form a soup of self replicating molecules which are later shown to be evolving. That would be an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence without an intellect.
We have the start of evolution in the creation of RNA through the materials present on Earth in its infancy proven. In other words we have evolution at its very beginning; the evolution of the inorganic into the organic. We have the demonstration of evolutionary changes in the ecosphere.
