Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

Dude, YOU are the one playing the semantic run-around game. We don't NEED even to define evolution.

By putting out a definition it allows us to classify things by shared characteristics. We can say automobile evolution and biological evolution are the same class of thing because they share these same characteristics.

---

I am not creating a straw man of your argument, I am pointing out that your thesis is utterly flawed.

Neither your definition nor your examples are isomorphic to biological evolution.
Therefore, your arguments do not apply to biological evolution.

You've gone coo-coo. A water clock is not isomorphic to a pocket watch but both are time pieces. Arguments about time pieces would apply to both to pocket watches, and water clocks.

[bennyboy]

Dude, YOU are the one playing the semantic run-around game. We don't NEED even to define evolution.

By putting out a definition it allows us to classify things by shared characteristics. We can say automobile evolution and biological evolution are the same class of thing because they share these same characteristics.

Unlike the others here, I would accept that your version of evolution and biological evolution share some characteristics. I think the simplest definition of evolution is that an entity (or entity definition e.g. DNA or even a car design) changes over time due to statistical pressures. I'd say, for example, that ideas evolve, or that individual people evolve through a lifetime. However, you are making a kind of category error in your definitions, here, by not recognizing which definitions represent parent categories, and which represent child nodes or peers.

Let's take an animal example. Mammals are those animals which create milk for offspring. Let's define a particular mammal-- "cats"-- which have the additional feature of liking to chase mice. We cannot study a million cats and then decide that all mammals "probably" like to chase mice. That's because defining features of a sub-category are not allowed to "bubble" up to the parent, and therefore be applied to all mammals. To show that other kinds of mammals-- e.g. "whales"-- like to chase mice, you'd have to study whales.

So let's say we take a collection of "evolved things," which include physical entitites, species, and ideas which change in response to statistical pressures. Now, we take a sub-category-- "human inventions"-- and establish that they are formed by a kind of evolutionary process, with the statistical pressure coming from the perceived success or failure of the invention (i.e. an intellectual evaluation). Does this provide evidence that evolved things all come from intellects? NO. You can't "bubble up" the defining features of a child definition to its parent, and then apply them to peer definitions. If you do, then you are equivocating different definitions of evolution. That would be like saying that cats and whales are the same because they both meet the minimal criteria for inclusion in the "mammal" category. Or, in saying that memes "evolve," it would be like insisting that memes therefore have two parents which fuck and exchange DNA, making baby memes which, due to natural variation and a slight chance of mutation, will have varying levels of reproductive success in a given environment. But we don't say that, because obviously memes and organisms do not evolve in the same way. They are peers, sharing only the most primitive definition of evolution: that they change over time in response to selective pressures.

Please read and understand this. If you cherry-pick a one-liner and give some terse comment, then I'm out of this thread, as I will take it as evidence that you are more interested in sticking to your God idea than in presenting an argument that accords with the rules of logic (which includes the proper use of category).

[The Grand Nudger]

Already been brought up...probably 70 pages ago or more by now Benny....afraid you've wasted your time.

[Mudhammam]

I don't think Heywood understands that the usefulness of inductive argument by way of analogy lies in a comparison of similar features. In order to make this analogy suit his purposes, he invokes similarity in those aspects that humans have mimicked by formalizing natural regularities, to argue for similarity in more fundamental aspects, and these he simply insists we should all just assume---though he offers nothing in support except for largely irrelevant examples of man imitating nature through formal symbols---ignoring that this assumption is the very thing in question (at least in his universe).

[robvalue]

Step 1: Man made some things that behave a bit like evolution, sort of. In a very abstract sense. And we make various models of simplified versions of evolution. We even mess about with other animals and life forms, within the overall pattern of evolution on Earth. An entirely descriptive model, of which we are a part.

Step 2: The evolution of life on this planet was intelligently designed.

Step 3: That intelligence is God.

Step 4: That God is Yahweh.

This is the logical conclusion of the argument, given that you already openly pre suppose the end conclusion. If you want anyone to take seriously your argument, you have to be honest enough to say that you have already drawn the conclusion and are just trying to fill in the blanks between reality and your conclusion.

[Heywood]

Please read and understand this. If you cherry-pick a one-liner and give some terse comment, then I'm out of this thread, as I will take it as evidence that you are more interested in sticking to your God idea than in presenting an argument that accords with the rules of logic (which includes the proper use of category).

Benny, the definition of evolutionary system I am using is reasonable. It was not tailor fitted so that only human created evolutionary systems satisfy it. In fact I would challenge you to present an argument that the definition I am using for evolutionary system could only apply to human created systems.

The fact is the definition I am using could apply to evolutionary systems which did not need intellects if such systems actually exist. This should be intuitively true to you because you accept that a system which you believe came into existence without the need of an intellect satisfies it.

If you don't want me to consider just human created evolutionary systems, then present some systems which are not human created.....I will consider them. If they turn out to have come into existence with out intellects and satisfy the very generic and broad definition I am using for evolutionary system, then I will shut up.

There are two things I have been considering over the last couple of days. Minerals and birds nest. The system which lead to the diversity of minerals around us today....is it evolutionary? Birds nests.....some of them are pretty snazzy and I wonder if they evolved like cars do.

[robvalue]

There are two things I have been considering over the last couple of days. Minerals and birds nest.

Me too!

[Chas]

Dude, YOU are the one playing the semantic run-around game. We don't NEED even to define evolution.

By putting out a definition it allows us to classify things by shared characteristics. We can say automobile evolution and biological evolution are the same class of thing because they share these same characteristics.

---

I am not creating a straw man of your argument, I am pointing out that your thesis is utterly flawed.

Neither your definition nor your examples are isomorphic to biological evolution.
Therefore, your arguments do not apply to biological evolution.

You've gone coo-coo. A water clock is not isomorphic to a pocket watch but both are time pieces. Arguments about time pieces would apply to both to pocket watches, and water clocks.

Arguments would only apply where they map to each other. Your definition is not specific enough to say anything interesting about biological evolution.

Again, unless the definition and examples cover the salient points, then your argument remains ineffective. Your automobile example is simply ridiculous.

In your first post in this thread, you say "I see the hand of God in nature. Every evolutionary system I have observed, whose origins are known to me, requires the existence of intelligence. Therefore I find it reasonable to conclude that the evolutionary system which produced me also required the existence of intelligence."

That is the leap of illogic that defines your entire argument. If your definition and examples don't map all the salient points of biological evolution, they don't support your thesis.

If all you are going to offer are toy systems and non-evolutionary examples, your argument is inapplicable and uninteresting. And wrong.

---

There are two things I have been considering over the last couple of days. Minerals and birds nest. The system which lead to the diversity of minerals around us today....is it evolutionary? Birds nests.....some of them are pretty snazzy and I wonder if they evolved like cars do.

The birds evolved, not the nests. Nests don't reproduce.

[Heywood]

The birds evolved, not the nests. Nests don't reproduce.

Nests get replicated. Reproduction is not needed for evolution just replication. Even biological evolution does not require reproduction. Let me give you an example.

Suppose Craig Venter wants to create himself a bacteria that shits out gasoline. Craig designs himself a bacteria and builds it. He then looks to see if the bacteria he built is shitting out gasoline and notices it isn't so he destroys it. He then has his computer make a small random change to the genome. Craig then builds a 2nd bacteria with this modified genome. Craig looks to see if this modified design of bacteria is shitting out gasoline and notices its isn't so he destroys it.

Now if the initial design of the bacteria shitted out something that was closer to gasoline than the modified design, Craig goes back to that initial design and has his computer preform another random modification to the genome. He builds another bacteria, observes to see if it shits out gasoline....etc.

If the modified design of the bacteria shitted out something that was closer to gasoline than the initial design, Craig keeps this modified design. Craig then has his computer make a 2nd random modification to it. Builds a bacteria and observes to see if it shits out gasoline....etc.

Craig repeats this process, tossing out the random modifications which cause the bacterial shit to be less like gasoline and keeping the modifications which do cause the bacterial shit to be more like gasoline. Eventually Craig will end up with a bacteria that shits out something very close to gasoline. Biology has evolved without reproduction.

This process can be automated and scaled up and in principle not one bacteria ever has to reproduce itself. The bacteria are being replicated via manufacture instead of reproduction. Replication is needed for evolution to happen....not replication by reproduction as you keep(errantly) insisting.

[Chas]

The birds evolved, not the nests. Nests don't reproduce.

Nests get replicated. Reproduction is not needed for evolution just replication.

Nests are not replicated, they are constructed. One nest is not made from another.

Even biological evolution does not require reproduction. Let me give you an example.

Suppose Craig Venter wants to create himself a bacteria that shits out gasoline. Craig designs himself a bacteria and builds it. He then looks to see if the bacteria he built is shitting out gasoline and notices it isn't so he destroys it. He then has his computer make a small random change to the genome. Craig then builds a 2nd bacteria with this modified genome. Craig looks to see if this modified design of bacteria is shitting out gasoline and notices its isn't so he destroys it.

Now if the initial design of the bacteria shitted out something that was closer to gasoline than the modified design, Craig goes back to that initial design and has his computer preform another random modification to the genome. He builds another bacteria, observes to see if it shits out gasoline....etc.

If the modified design of the bacteria shitted out something that was closer to gasoline than the initial design, Craig keeps this modified design. Craig then has his computer make a 2nd random modification to it. Builds a bacteria and observes to see if it shits out gasoline....etc.

Craig repeats this process, tossing out the random modifications which cause the bacterial shit to be less like gasoline and keeping the modifications which do cause the bacterial shit to be more like gasoline. Eventually Craig will end up with a bacteria that shits out something very close to gasoline. Biology has evolved without reproduction.

This process can be automated and scaled up and in principle not one bacteria ever has to reproduce itself. The bacteria are being replicated via manufacture instead of reproduction. Replication is needed for evolution to happen....not replication by reproduction as you keep(errantly) insisting.

That is not evolution. That is invention; those bacteria are being constructed.

You have once again made a silly example that does not map to biological evolution. You have a profoundly deep misunderstanding of what evolution is.

Here is what evolution is: Imperfect replication of replicators. The rest follows.