Detecting design or intent in nature

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm is desperately trying to refute this argument by claiming that evolutionary systems are merely procedural generations

I've made no such claim. Own up to your own statements. You're the one that decided a procedural gen was an example of an evolutionary system from which you claim to draw observational support for your assertions. I've been telling you that this was ignorant from the word go...but you don't want to hear that. Is there commanality between procedural gens and evolutionary systems, sure. Are they the same thing? Nope. Unfortunately, that won't work out for you...because then you won't have any "observations" left to claim.

and procedural generations happen all the time in nature without intellects.

by definiton - all procedural generation occurs with no requirement of intellect or intelligence. Doesn't matter where it happens.

I agree that some procedural generations happen in nature without intellects but I also realize that some do not.

Your agreement isn't required, your realization is in error. Procedural gens do not require intellect, there is no room for disagreement, if it requires intellect, it isn't a procedural generation. Nothing more can be said.

When you are playing Skyrim specific procedural generations are being implemented that would likely never occur without intellects.

You're hung up on the artwork and the moving pictures - you don't seem to realize that this is not the procedural generation, but the UI overlay -on top- of the procedural generation. This has all been explained to you multiple times in this thread. "Artwork created by creatures with intellect requires intellect" yeah, -no shit-.

Further, Evolution is more that just a procedural generation.

Then procedural generations aren't support for your claim, weasel. Talk about that "more", tell us how that "more" requires intellect.

It is a process and not all processes can be implemented without intellects. If you agree that evolution is a process and that not all processes can be implemented without intellects, then you should be open to the question of whether evolution is one of those processes which can't be implemented except in the presence of intellects.

I, personally, wont be open to anything you have to say until you can show a little integrity. If you can do that, you'll find me surprisingly accomodating, though I doubt that I'll find reason to reach the conclusion that you have.

Evolution seems to be one of those processes as evidenced by the fact that we never see new evolutionary seems implemented except in the presence of intellects.

Presence is not neccessity. Correlation is not causation. This has already been addressed. Decide whether or not you want to babble about presence or necessity, stop switching back and forth.

If someone wants to present an example of an evolutionary system which has been observed to come into existence without intellects, I would be very happy to see it.

You already have, you were kind enough to present the example yourself.

Last, there are certain specific elements of evolution. They are:

replication
heritable traits
change
selection

Rhythm denies these specific elements of evolution by calling them "weasel words". Why those participating in this thread give him a pass on that is beyond me. When he calls those elements "weasel words" he sounds like a fundamentalist or a Young Earth Creationist who has no understanding of evolution.

I'm saying that you are -using- them as weasel words, not that they are.

I challenged Rhythm to show that procedural gens like river systems include these elements which define evolution. He refuses.....because he can't. Does anyone else want to take up the challenge?

Because I don't have to. You've accepted that a procedural gen is an example an evolutionary system, and you have repeatedly asserted that evolutionary systems require intellect by reference to your observations of procedural gens. That they do not, by definition, is as far as I have to go to show the vapidity of your argument. You can demand that I take whatever silly position you think might be convenient to your argument, but that doesn't mean that I actually will, or that it's required.

Lets cut right to the chase, shall we? This thread is 50 pages long, but it could go 500 - and no matter what's said to you, no matter how many times you are corrected on matters for which there is no possibility of disagreement, you'll continue to issue this "challenge". You'll continue to pretend as if the thread didn't exist. But hey, what do I know...maybe you'll prove me wrong...maybe you will acknowledge that people have been responding to you, maybe you will acknowledge your mistake by making modifications. But 50 pages says you wont.

You're making a case for belief in the existence of a god and you know that I flat out don't give a shit about whether or not a god exists. If you had a good argument I'd say "good for you, go bow if you like". My interest is the conversation, the reasoning, the actual meat, not the fucking fairy you want to saddle up with it. This isn't a case for belief, this isn't even an issue of belief. You're simply not using your argument properly. I'll continue to remind you of this until you do. Don't you -want- to have a proper argument, or have I misread you (seems from this end that having good reason is something you value, even if you're not entirely clear on what good reason is)? Is that at all important, or are you wasting everyone's time, including your own? When it comes to a question of why you believe, better to say "because I do" than this garbage. You're doing the very notion of "god" a disservice with this, understand?