Detecting design or intent in nature

[bennyboy]

Without reproduction there can be no evolution. If you are concentrating on the inception, then you are arguing abiogenesis vs. creation - not evolution.

If we accept your argument then consider this: The first Mycoplasma Laboratorium was not the product of reproduction and therefore it was not the product of the system of biological evolution which is responsible for you and me. Each subsequent generation of Mycoplasma Laboratorium conforms to your definition of evolution and must then be considered part of a completely different system of evolution then the one which is responsible for you and me. If we accept your definition of evolution, then Rasetsu's premise three is false. It is false because we have a Heywood system which required intellect to implement but that operates exactly like the biological evolutionary system which is responsible for you and me.

We've already established that human-made evolutionary systems may be "implemented" by intellect, and that this implemenation is not useful evidence about anything in nature.

Answer my grains of sand analogy, please, since I think it represents your way of doing statistics.

[Chas]

Without reproduction there can be no evolution. If you are concentrating on the inception, then you are arguing abiogenesis vs. creation - not evolution.

If we accept your argument then consider this: The first Mycoplasma Laboratorium was not the product of reproduction and therefore it was not the product of the system of biological evolution which is responsible for you and me. Each subsequent generation of Mycoplasma Laboratorium conforms to your definition of evolution and must then be considered part of a completely different system of evolution then the one which is responsible for you and me. If we accept your definition of evolution, then Rasetsu's premise three is false. It is false because we have a Heywood system which required intellect to implement but that operates exactly like the biological evolutionary system which is responsible for you and me.

If we consider Mycoplasma Laboratorium as man-made, then it is in a different tree of life than all other living things on earth. If it will be subject to reproductive error and selection, then evolution will occur.

The fact that Mycoplasma Laboratorium was invented says precisely nothing about how life came about on Earth. The fact that it may evolve simply shows that my definition is correct.

[IATIA]

Some additions for discussion:

Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years

Fossils May Belong To New Primitive Human Species

[Heywood]

If we consider Mycoplasma Laboratorium as man-made, then it is in a different tree of life than all other living things on earth. If it will be subject to reproductive error and selection, then evolution will occur.

The fact that Mycoplasma Laboratorium was invented says precisely nothing about how life came about on Earth. The fact that it may evolve simply shows that my definition is correct.

It demonstrates that intellects can create biological evolutionary systems. It is not unreasonable to think that other biological evolutionary systems will soon be created by Venter or others like him. The situation will very soon likely be this:

There will be thousands of different trees of life on this planet.
All those trees except one will be known to be the products of intellect.
There will be one tree where we just don't know if it is the product of intellect or not.

If most trees and possibly all trees of life on this planet are products of intellect, would it then be unreasonable to believe that most and possibly all trees of life in the universe are products of intellect?

---

Some additions for discussion:

Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years

Evolution often plateaus. The crocodile is largely unchanged in 250 million years. The title of the article is misleading. As long as replication, heritable traits, change, and selection is happening then evolution is happening.

---

Let's say there is a single grain of sand on a table, placed by a 3rd party. However, it is hidden under a napkin, so we cannot see its color. I pose to you the question, "Which is more likely true: that the grain is white or that it is not?" I now start dropping white grains of sand on the table, one after the other, until there are many thousands of them. You would say, "In the Big Set of all grains of sand on this table, there are now 100,000 grains of sand and 99,999 of them are known to be white-- therefore the remaining one is almost certainly white as well." I can contrive to pile millions and millions of grains of sand in this way, and you will get more and more excited, because you will feel more and more confident that you know what's under the napkin: a white grain.

I hope I can meet you sometime, and that you like gambling.

If I have only ever observed white grains of sand in existence, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the one under the napkin is a color other than white. I apply the same logic to photons. If every photon I have ever observed travels at 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum I have no reason whatsoever to believe the photon I cannot observe is traveling at a speed other than 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.

Physicists do the same thing I do....and like me...they are often very good gamblers.

[Mr.wizard]

If we consider Mycoplasma Laboratorium as man-made, then it is in a different tree of life than all other living things on earth. If it will be subject to reproductive error and selection, then evolution will occur.

The fact that Mycoplasma Laboratorium was invented says precisely nothing about how life came about on Earth. The fact that it may evolve simply shows that my definition is correct.

It demonstrates that intellects can create biological evolutionary systems. It is not unreasonable to think that other biological evolutionary systems will soon be created by Venter or others like him. The situation will very soon likely be this:

There will be thousands of different trees of life on this planet.
All those trees except one will be known to be the products of intellect.
There will be one tree where we just don't know if it is the product of intellect or not.

If most trees and possibly all trees of life on this planet are products of intellect, would it then be unreasonable to believe that most and possibly all trees of life in the universe are products of intellect?

---

Some additions for discussion:

Evolution often plateaus. The crocodile is largely unchanged in 250 million years. The title of the article is misleading. As long as replication, heritable traits, change, and selection is happening then evolution is happening.

---

Let's say there is a single grain of sand on a table, placed by a 3rd party. However, it is hidden under a napkin, so we cannot see its color. I pose to you the question, "Which is more likely true: that the grain is white or that it is not?" I now start dropping white grains of sand on the table, one after the other, until there are many thousands of them. You would say, "In the Big Set of all grains of sand on this table, there are now 100,000 grains of sand and 99,999 of them are known to be white-- therefore the remaining one is almost certainly white as well." I can contrive to pile millions and millions of grains of sand in this way, and you will get more and more excited, because you will feel more and more confident that you know what's under the napkin: a white grain.

I hope I can meet you sometime, and that you like gambling.

If I have only ever observed white grains of sand in existence, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the one under the napkin is a color other than white. I apply the same logic to photons. If every photon I have ever observed travels at 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum I have no reason whatsoever to believe the photon I cannot observe is traveling at a speed other than 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.

Physicists do the same thing I do....and like me...they are often very good gamblers.

It does not show man creates " biological evolutionary systems". It shows we can create partially synthetic species of bacteria that is capable of replicating and that's all it shows, we didn't create a new system of evolution.

[bennyboy]

If I have only ever observed white grains of sand in existence, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the one under the napkin is a color other than white.

It works even better if YOU are the one who piled on all the white grains, and you refuse to consider allowing any grains on the table that you didn't personally put there as evidence, hey?

If you are going to do this, then you haven't gone far enough-- probably because it would be silly. Here's Heywood v. 2.0: "Since any system which meets criteria X counts as an evolutionary system, and since humans can arbitrarily make such systems, then the number of evolutionary systems which could hypothetically be made by humans is infinite."

Forget "probably" or "likely" or "most likely." Just say, "Fuck yeah! Intellectual 'implementation' is guaranteed. Can't argue with infinity, bitches!"

Except that after all that, there's still no evidence of any intellect other than ours, and no reason to think that ANY system, evoutionary or otherwise, was created by one.

[Heywood]

It works even better if YOU are the one who piled on all the white grains, and you refuse to consider allowing any grains on the table that you didn't personally put there as evidence, hey?

If you are going to do this, then you haven't gone far enough-- probably because it would be silly. Here's Heywood v. 2.0: "Since any system which meets criteria X counts as an evolutionary system, and since humans can arbitrarily make such systems, then the number of evolutionary systems which could hypothetically be made by humans is infinite."

Forget "probably" or "likely" or "most likely." Just say, "Fuck yeah! Intellectual 'implementation' is guaranteed. Can't argue with infinity, bitches!"

I have asked several times for you guys to come up with your own examples of evolutionary systems....preferably ones which don't require intellect. So far all the examples you guys have come up with have required intellect. I can hardly be accused exclusively piling the grains of sand.

[bennyboy]

I have asked several times for you guys to come up with your own examples of evolutionary systems....preferably ones which don't require intellect. So far all the examples you guys have come up with have required intellect. I can hardly be accused exclusively piling the grains of sand.

Your stipulations about "observing the implementation" don't leave much room, do they, you naughty little sand-filterer? The reason nobody comes up with anything is because they only care about one kind of evolution-- actual evolution, the kind we observe in animals, for which there is no actual evidence of intellect.

Since you're playing loosy-goosy with definitions, I'd say that any persistent pattern that replicates and changes in response to external stimuli would meet a loose definition of evolution. How about crystals? Each new iteration of a crystal's structure does so in response to the existing crystal, i.e. it's "parent." And a snowflake's shape "evolves" in response to variations in climate.

I predict that whatever free-style definition I make, you will shoot it down, but whatever arbitrary human system you make up that are kind of like evolution, you will find it supporting the conclusion that non-human systems are designed by intellect. The special pleading begins in
3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

[Mudhammam]

Would the examples of evolution observed in nature be appropriate? Probably not since you're concerned with abiogenesis, not evolution. But what other examples of abiogenesis could be given considering that life has thus far only been observed on our planet?

Maybe you think any analogy to biological evolution will suffice, of which there are many examples. However, if your question boils down to, "Can anyone give me an example of a human reproduction of X but that doesn't involve intellect," clearly you are not being intellectually honest.

[Chas]

If we consider Mycoplasma Laboratorium as man-made, then it is in a different tree of life than all other living things on earth. If it will be subject to reproductive error and selection, then evolution will occur.

The fact that Mycoplasma Laboratorium was invented says precisely nothing about how life came about on Earth. The fact that it may evolve simply shows that my definition is correct.

It demonstrates that intellects can create biological evolutionary systems. It is not unreasonable to think that other biological evolutionary systems will soon be created by Venter or others like him. The situation will very soon likely be this:

There will be thousands of different trees of life on this planet.
All those trees except one will be known to be the products of intellect.
There will be one tree where we just don't know if it is the product of intellect or not.

If most trees and possibly all trees of life on this planet are products of intellect, would it then be unreasonable to believe that most and possibly all trees of life in the universe are products of intellect?

Yes, that is an unreasonable conclusion.