Detecting design or intent in nature

[downbeatplumb]

There is no known mechanism whereby intellect can spontaneously spring into being, so evolution cannot pre date intellect because the only way intellect is known to exist is by a process of evolution.

Heywoods "argument" puts the cart before the horse.

[JesusHChrist]

Maybe a simple picture from object oriented programming will help.

The top box is the parent class (or set), the lower boxes are sub-classes.

The bottom boxes inherit all of the properties of the parent, but have unique attributes of their own. They share all of the properties of the parent with each other.

The sub class on the left has a property the one on the right does not and vice versa. The parent class has neither of the sub-classes unique properties.

In the replication example, the parent has replication as an property. One sub-class, biological has replicating replicators as a property. Another sub-class, inanimate objects, has manufacturing replication as a property. Yet they both share all of the parent's properties and maintain their own unique properties.

Why is this difficult to grasp? Seems fundamentally obvious.

[Heywood]

There is no known mechanism whereby intellect can spontaneously spring into being, so evolution cannot pre date intellect because the only way intellect is known to exist is by a process of evolution.

Heywoods "argument" puts the cart before the horse.

We know evolutionary systems create intellect.
We know intellects create evolutionary systems.

We don't know what came first.....the evolutionary system or the intellect. You just assume it was the evolutionary systems because such an assumption is necessary to maintain your atheistic faith.

---

The bottom boxes inherit all of the properties of the parent, but have unique attributes of their own. They share all of the properties of the parent with each other.

The parent "box" is all Heywood systems. If all Heywood systems have the property of requiring intellect then the "bottom boxes" have that property as well. The bottom boxes would be "Heywood systems which use reproduction as its means of replication" and "Heywood systems which do not use reproduction as its means of replication".

[Mr.wizard]

There is no known mechanism whereby intellect can spontaneously spring into being, so evolution cannot pre date intellect because the only way intellect is known to exist is by a process of evolution.

Heywoods "argument" puts the cart before the horse.

We know evolutionary systems create intellect.
We know intellects create evolutionary systems.

We don't know what came first.....the evolutionary system or the intellect. You just assume it was the evolutionary systems because such an assumption is necessary to maintain your atheistic faith.

---

The bottom boxes inherit all of the properties of the parent, but have unique attributes of their own. They share all of the properties of the parent with each other.

The parent "box" is all Heywood systems. If all Heywood systems have the property of requiring intellect then the "bottom boxes" have that property as well. The bottom boxes would be "Heywood systems which use reproduction as its means of replication" and "Heywood systems which do not use reproduction as its means of replication".

Can you explain what you mean by evolutionary systems?

[JesusHChrist]

The parent "box" is all Heywood systems. If all Heywood systems have the property of requiring intellect then the "bottom boxes" have that property as well. The bottom boxes would be "Heywood systems which use reproduction as its means of replication" and "Heywood systems which do not use reproduction as its means of replication".

You aren't programmer/analyst are you? The parent must have only the properties that are generic to every sub class and nothing more. When doing analysis, only the generic properties belong in the parent. Sub-classes define the specialization.

In your example a property requiring intellect as a means of reproduction is not the most generic case. You are putting cart before horse. More generic would be simply "things that replicate". All sub-classes would have the property of replication with the specialization being the means of replication/reproduction or whatever. One sub-class would require intellect, another would not.

Again, this is fundamental.

[Heywood]

We know evolutionary systems create intellect.
We know intellects create evolutionary systems.

We don't know what came first.....the evolutionary system or the intellect. You just assume it was the evolutionary systems because such an assumption is necessary to maintain your atheistic faith.

---

The parent "box" is all Heywood systems. If all Heywood systems have the property of requiring intellect then the "bottom boxes" have that property as well. The bottom boxes would be "Heywood systems which use reproduction as its means of replication" and "Heywood systems which do not use reproduction as its means of replication".

Can you explain what you mean by evolutionary systems?

A system is an evolutionary system if it contains the following elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection. Some people did not like defining "evolutionary system" this way....so I said fine, lets call such systems "Heywood Systems". The labels don't change the argument.

There is a set of systems which contain those elements. Every time we examine members of that set and find them to require intellect without ever finding a member which does not require intellect, it increases the likelihood that all members of that set of systems require intellect.

---

In your example a property requiring intellect as a means of reproduction is not the most generic case. You are putting cart before horse. More generic would be simply "things that replicate". All sub-classes would have the property of replication with the specialization being the means of replication/reproduction or whatever. One sub-class would require intellect, another would not.

Again, this is fundamental.

Replication is more generic than reproduction. I am not putting the cart before the horse. You are trying to sneak in "requiring intellect" as part of my definition of evolutionary systems. "Requiring intellect" is no where to be found in the individual elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. It is a conclusion based on observation that such systems which contain the individual elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection also required intellect to come into existence.

You can very easily refute my argument simply by presenting an example of a system which contains replication, heritable traits, change, and selection but is known not to require or not to have required an intellect to exist.

You won't present such an example because such an example does not exist.

[Mr.wizard]

Can you explain what you mean by evolutionary systems?

A system is an evolutionary system if it contains the following elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection. Some people did not like defining "evolutionary system" this way....so I said fine, lets call such systems "Heywood Systems". The labels don't change the argument.

There is a set of systems which contain those elements. Every time we examine members of that set and find them to require intellect without ever finding a member which does not require intellect, it increases the likelihood that all members of that set of systems require intellect.

So you made up the definition and made up that it requires intellect?

[Heywood]

A system is an evolutionary system if it contains the following elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection. Some people did not like defining "evolutionary system" this way....so I said fine, lets call such systems "Heywood Systems". The labels don't change the argument.

There is a set of systems which contain those elements. Every time we examine members of that set and find them to require intellect without ever finding a member which does not require intellect, it increases the likelihood that all members of that set of systems require intellect.

So you made up the definition and made up that it requires intellect?

Negative Mr Wizard.

I made up the definition and then observed that no such systems(which contain the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection) has ever been observed coming into existence without intellect. I further observed that when ever we could observe such a system coming into existence it always required an intellect. I then concluded from my observations that it is likely that all such systems require intellect to come into existence.

If my conclusion is wrong, it should be easy to show it is wrong by presenting an example of such a system which is known not to have required intellect. Please present an observation which falsifies my argument.

[Mr.wizard]

So you made up the definition and made up that it requires intellect?

Negative Mr Wizard.

I made up the definition and then observed that no such systems(which contain the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection) has ever been observed coming into existence without intellect. I further observed that when ever we could observe such a system coming into existence it always required an intellect. I then concluded from my observations that it is likely that all such systems require intellect to come into existence.

If my conclusion is wrong, it should be easy to show it is wrong by presenting an example of such a system which is known not to have required intellect. Please present an observation which falsifies my argument.

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that those require intellect? Have you observed this intellect? Whos mind is it coming from? Have you observed this intellect actively guiding all change over every species at all times? If you could even begin to establish that such an intelligence exists them maybe we can talk about what requires it.

[bennyboy]

So you made up the definition and made up that it requires intellect?

Negative Mr Wizard.

I made up the definition and then observed that no such systems(which contain the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection) has ever been observed coming into existence without [organic, Earth-based, within-the-last-ten-thousand-years]intellect. I further observed that when ever we could observe such a system coming into existence it always required an intellect. I then concluded from my observations that it is likely that all such systems require intellect to come into existence.

Fixed it for you. Why even talk about evolution? What you're really saying is: "Intellect exists, therefore God." If you want to talk about actual evolution, then it exists in a set of one-- it does not have parallels to things made by man, because man wasn't around when the evolution of species began.

If my conclusion is wrong, it should be easy to show it is wrong by presenting an example of such a system which is known not to have required intellect. Please present an observation which falsifies my argument.

Please present an observation which falsifies my argument that there's a Magic Space Monkey hiding behind the sun. You can't? Oh, then it must be true.