Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

The reason I believe biological evolution requires an intellect is because I observe that every other evolutionary system requires intellect.

Then you don't understand evolution. Evolution doesn't even require life-- it only requires complex interactions over time, with some mechanism for persisting change.

Life isn't a requirement for evolution and I never said it was. You are making a straw man argument. Do you understand evolution? Evolution is a process that operates on a system and a system requires components. Sometimes the component is intellect(as in the case of memetic evolution). When intellect is not a component of the system then the system is found to be designed. This has been the case in every evolutionary system I have looked at in which I privy to the details of its origination.

Now after making these observations, why should I make a special case for the system which produced me and believe that somehow it is different and special and did not require either an intellect to design it or to be a component of it?

[Chas]

There is no reason to believe that biological evolution requires an intellect.

And there is most certainly no evidence that it does.

The reason I believe biological evolution requires an intellect is because I observe that every other evolutionary system requires intellect.

The reason I believe mysterious excess gravity which exist in galaxies is caused by some sort of dark matter we have never observed is because in every other instance when we observe gravity it turns out to be a consequence of the existence of some sort of matter/energy.

You have observed man-made simulations. Whoop-de-fucking-do. Your conclusion does not logically follow.

"Dark matter" is a place holder for whatever it is that appears to be affecting gravity in large-scale structures like galaxies and galaxy clusters.
We don't know what it is, regardless of what you believe.

[Heywood]

You have observed man-made simulations. Whoop-de-fucking-do. Your conclusion does not logically follow.

"Dark matter" is a place holder for whatever it is that appears to be affecting gravity in large-scale structures like galaxies and galaxy clusters.
We don't know what it is, regardless of what you believe.

Except that we have good reason to believe the cause of this excess gravity is matter....why? Because everytime we observe gravity and we know its cause...it turns out to be matter/energy.

And I have observed more than just computer simulations. The game Chinese Whispers is an evolutionary system which requires an intellect.

[The Grand Nudger]

Evolution is a process that operates on a system and a system requires components. Sometimes the component is intellect(as in the case of memetic evolution). When intellect is not a component of the system then the system is found to be designed.

Um......b-mine.....you realize that this statement isn't coherent, right?

This has been the case in every evolutionary system I have looked at in which I privy to the details of its origination.

-again, you've never looked.

Now after making these observations, why should I make a special case for the system which produced me and believe that somehow it is different and special and did not require either an intellect to design it or to be a component of it?

You've made no such observations. A claim is what you've made, not an observation. I don't think that it's actually that easy to mix those two up...pretty sure you have to want it bad.

[Chas]

You have observed man-made simulations. Whoop-de-fucking-do. Your conclusion does not logically follow.

"Dark matter" is a place holder for whatever it is that appears to be affecting gravity in large-scale structures like galaxies and galaxy clusters.
We don't know what it is, regardless of what you believe.

Except that we have good reason to believe the cause of this excess gravity is matter....why? Because everytime we observe gravity and we know its cause...it turns out to be matter/energy.

There are also hypotheses that gravity itself operates differently at those scales.

And I have observed more than just computer simulations. The game Chinese Whispers is an evolutionary system which requires an intellect.

I didn't say 'computer simulations'. Chinese whispers is a game created by people - not a good metaphor for evolution by natural selection.

[The Grand Nudger]

Chinese whispers doesn't require intellect either, even though intellect is often present.

[Heywood]

I didn't say 'computer simulations'. Chinese whispers is a game created by people - not a good metaphor for evolution by natural selection.

You said I only looked at computer simulations of evolution. That simply wasn't true. I have looked and continue to look for any evolutionary system I can set my eyes upon. I found Chinese Whispers and it turns out to be an excellent demonstration of evolution. It also turns out to require intellect.

Maybe you or Rhythm can come up with an example of an evolutionary system which doesn't require an intellect to either design it or be a component of it. An objective example and not something you believe didn't require intellect as a matter of faith.

[Chas]

I didn't say 'computer simulations'. Chinese whispers is a game created by people - not a good metaphor for evolution by natural selection.

You said I only looked at computer simulations of evolution.

No, I didn't.

That simply wasn't true. I have looked and continue to look for any evolutionary system I can set my eyes upon. I found Chinese Whispers and it turns out to be an excellent demonstration of evolution. It also turns out to require intellect.

No, it's a lousy demonstration of evolution by natural selection because there is no selection.

Maybe you or Rhythm can come up with an example of an evolutionary system which doesn't require an intellect to either design it or be a component of it. An objective example and not something you believe didn't require intellect as a matter of faith.

There is no evidence that the evolution of life on earth required intellect, nor that there was even intellect present. The algorithm accurately describes what we observe and allows us to make predictions about what we will find.

[Jenny A]

You are conflating the products of an evolutionary system with the system itself.

Quite right, I was refuting seeing design in each animal of nature, not seeing design in the evolutionary mechanism.

But no, I don't see that natural selection was designed either. For one thing, it isn't a system. There is no more to natural selection than this: those organisms which are most often successful in replicating themselves will be most common in the next generation. It's a mathematical truism not a design any more than 1 + 1 = 2 is a design.

Can you point to an evolutionary system which you know for certain doesn't require an intellect to come into existence or to be a substantial part of it? I cannot. It seems every evolutionary system....including memetic ones, required either intellect to design them or intellect to be the selective mechanism in them. Why then should I make a special case for the evolutionary system which produced me and believe that somehow it is different and didn't need an intellect to design it or be substantially involved in the selection mechanism?

Natural selection is not a system at all. It's just a simple rule. It applies in simulated worlds too. What is designed in simulations is not the rule of natural selection but the environment in which it takes place, the mechanism by which the simulated organisms change and in your simulation the selection of a single criteria for determining which organisms will reproduce. But evolution would take place in any environment where organisms can reproduce.

[Heywood]

But no, I don't see that natural selection was designed either. For one thing, it isn't a system. There is no more to natural selection than this: those organisms which are most often successful in replicating themselves will be most common in the next generation. It's a mathematical truism not a design any more than 1 + 1 = 2 is a design.

Natural selection is not evolution. It is often, but not always, a component of an evolutionary system. Sometimes evolutionary systems use a different selection mechanism. For instance, artificial selection is responsible for the current form of the "atheist's nightmare".....the banana.

Natural selection is not a system at all. It's just a simple rule. It applies in simulated worlds too. What is designed in simulations is not the rule of natural selection but the environment in which it takes place, the mechanism by which the simulated organisms change and in your simulation the selection of a single criteria for determining which organisms will reproduce. But evolution would take place in any environment where organisms can reproduce.

I think you are conflating natural selection with evolution. They are not the same thing. I am okay with your characterization of natural selection as a rule but remember, rules do not operate in a vacuum. Rules operate on things other than themselves. They have external references. You need much more than a selection rule to have an evolutionary system. You also need to have replicators with heritable but changeable characteristics. The rule, the replicators, the heritable characteristics are all connected things which make up a more complex whole. They are a system in the truest sense of the word.

I have never observed these systems come into existence spontaneously except when intellect is the selection mechanism. I have only observed these systems come into existence via outright design by intellects or when intellects make the selections. This being the case, what good reason do I have to believe, as you would have me believe....as matter of faith....that the evolutionary system which produced me was not outright designed or there is an intellect which makes the selection?