Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 12:47 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 12:52 pm by bennyboy.)
(February 6, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: I have set up only one goal post. Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection. Your task is a simple one. Present an observation of a system which contains those elements, which was observed coming into existence sans intellect. 1) You still fail because you don't know what sets are.
2) To answer your question: intellect.
Intellect itself meets the criteria you have set out, as the emergence of complex thought from simple sensory elements involves all of replication, heritable traits, change and selection, at least as you've already abused those terms.
Intellect could not have been in existence when it came into existence, so the only question (at least in your goofy world) is whether it was observed. And, of course, it was-- because intellect is the organized response of an organism to its sense data, and unintellectual organisms must therefore have observed the first intellectual organisms.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 12:53 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 12:55 pm by IATIA.)
(February 6, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am talking about every evolutionary system which contains the following elements: replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Those elements define the set of things I am talking about. Biological evolution just happens to belong in that set because it is a system which contains those elements. "Biological evolution" is the only one in that set then. That is the only system that replicates. A car is replicated, but it does not replicate. A bird nest is replicated, but it does not replicate. There is a big difference between acting on an object and the actions of the object.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm
You can't prove that nests don't replicate.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:28 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 1:32 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 12:53 pm)IATIA Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am talking about every evolutionary system which contains the following elements: replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Those elements define the set of things I am talking about. Biological evolution just happens to belong in that set because it is a system which contains those elements. "Biological evolution" is the only one in that set then. That is the only system that replicates. A car is replicated, but it does not replicate. A bird nest is replicated, but it does not replicate. There is a big difference between acting on an object and the actions of the object.
You claim cars are replicated but the system which results in cars does not contain the element of replication?
You're being nonsensical.
Or maybe you are just trying to use word salad to deceive people into believing replication and reproduction are the exact same thing.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:36 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 1:37 pm by bennyboy.)
(February 6, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 12:53 pm)IATIA Wrote: "Biological evolution" is the only one in that set then. That is the only system that replicates. A car is replicated, but it does not replicate. A bird nest is replicated, but it does not replicate. There is a big difference between acting on an object and the actions of the object.
You claim cars are replicated but the system which results in cars does not contain the element of replication? The system which results in the replication of cars wasn't created BY human intellect. It IS human intellect. All the "evolved systems" you talked about are just different things that the evolved intellect of humans do. So unless you can prove that intellect was originally created by intellect, your goofy theory is in big trouble.
(February 6, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Or maybe you are just trying to use word salad to deceive people 
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:39 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 1:46 pm by Chas.)
(February 6, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 9:43 am)Chas Wrote: However, if you are now talking about evolution in a broader, less technical sense such as the evolution of computers, or the evolution of thought in the political world, or memes, then this has nothing much to do with biological evolution.
I am talking about every evolutionary system which contains the following elements: replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Those elements define the set of things I am talking about. Biological evolution just happens to belong in that set because it is a system which contains those elements.
What you are doing is making a special pleading. You are saying that even though Biological evolution contains those elements it really doesn't belong to the set of things I am talking about.....that somehow it is a special case. You are making this special pleading without any justification.
No, it is not special pleading. Your definition does not include replication of replicators which is central to biological evolution.
Biological evolution is descent with modification. That means reproduction.
Your examples don't; your argument is pointless.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:48 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 1:53 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Chas Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am talking about every evolutionary system which contains the following elements: replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Those elements define the set of things I am talking about. Biological evolution just happens to belong in that set because it is a system which contains those elements.
What you are doing is making a special pleading. You are saying that even though Biological evolution contains those elements it really doesn't belong to the set of things I am talking about.....that somehow it is a special case. You are making this special pleading without any justification.
No, it is not special pleading. Your definition does not include replication of replicators which is central to biological evolution.
I'm not talking about biological evolution. Apparently bolding what I am talking about is not enough to stop you from trying to change the subject in order to hide your special pleading. Maybe if I make the text bigger....
I am talking about every evolutionary system which contains the following elements: replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Those elements define the set of things I am talking about. Biological evolution just happens to belong in that set because it is a system which contains those elements.
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:49 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 1:36 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The system which results in the replication of cars wasn't created BY human intellect. It IS human intellect. All the "evolved systems" you talked about are just different things that the evolved intellect of humans do. So unless you can prove that intellect was originally created by intellect, your goofy theory is in big trouble.
(February 6, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Chas Wrote: No, it is not special pleading. Your definition does not include replication of replicators which is central to biological evolution.
Biological evolution is descent with modification. That means reproduction.
Your examples don't; your argument is pointless.
97 pages...
He hasn't got it yet, no possible chance he will ever get it.
None.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: You claim cars are replicated but the system which results in cars does not contain the element of replication? Yep! Unless you have some video of the automotive mitosis process or at least a couple of cars fucking.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 1:54 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 1:55 pm by robvalue.)
I think he does get it, at least part of his brain does, but he can't accept it because his belief system is balanced on the conclusion he wants to draw.
I can empathise, when you've spent a long time believing something must be true, it's hard work to consider you may have been wrong, or that your reasoning might be faulty. When you've been deceived so badly by others, you've been put between a rock and a hard place.
|
