Detecting design or intent in nature

[JuliaL]

Altruism benefits another individual but not the species

Seems to me that the species benefits through the benefits which apply to its members. e.g. the species grows more numerous if even only one of its members does not starve when it otherwise might.

Kin selection is just gene selection. Evolution happens at the gene level, not the organism level.

OK, I'm still confuged.
If evolution is solely about changes in gene frequency, then why think that there are benefits for individuals and not the species? I don't see how you can accept one and reject the other.

[Heywood]

You're a shameless liar Heywood, and you should have known I'd already prepared you a short list of just some of the examples you've been offered. Not that you're going to stop this behaviour now that I've posted it, I just wanted you to deny it three times before the cock crowed.

Your body

Is not an evolutionary system.

biological evolution

Chas is assuming his own conclusion. Chas assumes the biological evolutionary system which resulted in his existence didn't require an intellect....so he concludes it didn't require an intellect. Chas wasn't around and certainly isn't privy to the details of how the evolutionary system which resulted in us came into existence. His assumption/conclusion is worthless.

Chinese whispers

Is an evolutionary system that requires the existence of intellect.

Solar systems. Rivers.

Is not an evolutionary system.

Computational systems (and the products of computational systems - such as simulations)

Computational systems which are also evolutionary systems are the products of intellects....at least every computational system I have seen that I am privy to the details of its origins.

-Now go crawl in a hole.

Again I ask you to provide an example of an evolutionary system which you know through observation and not wishful thinking that didn't require an intellect to exist. If evolutionary systems come into being without intellects, this should be easy enough for you to do. If your position is correct, we should be surrounded with evolutionary systems we have observed coming into existence without intellects.....but we arn't. We only observe evolutionary systems coming into existence in conjunction with the existence of intellects. This is reason to believe that all evolutionary systems require intellects.

[Esquilax]

Heywood's position has another flaw, which is more a problem with his argumentation and logic than his observations, but it's worth looking at because it scuttles his entire premise at the get go.

To put it simply, he's arbitrarily halting the procession of his argument at the point where it's most convenient for him, but where he doesn't have to deal with the consequences of bearing it out consistently. But we don't have to let him get away with this, and to hold him accountable we need ask only a simple question: why is he stopping his argument at intelligence?

If his argument goes that all the evolutionary systems he's seen for which the origins are known are the result of intelligence, therefore all evolutionary systems are the result of intelligence, Heywood is making an arbitrary decision to cut things off at generic intelligence, when that's not at all the full scope of what he's saying. In reality, not only are all the evolutionary systems with origins he knows of the result of intelligence, they're specifically the result of human intelligence. Coupled to this, he's also never seen an evolutionary system for which the origin was a non-human or human-created intelligence, so shouldn't the premises of his own argument eliminate that possibility from the running? The argument, when we subtract the hidden special pleading, actually should lead him to the conclusion that evolutionary systems are all the result of human intelligence, even the ones that came into being before humans evolved as a result of them, refuting and showing the clear inadequacies in what he's saying.

But we can take this one step further, since we've also never seen any non-human intelligences that are at the same level as ours, and thus according to Heywood's own logic he shouldn't be considering that they exist until we falsify that by producing a non-human intelligence of human sophistication or greater. If he's going to start bringing up dolphins or such, I can happily expand the criteria out so that he needs to include intelligences of non-Earth origins, since we've also never seen that.

Heywood's position, were he to hold it consistently- which would be a first, I admit- would preclude the very conclusions he comes to regarding evolutionary systems in this thread. It is thus self refuting, unless Heywood continues with his baseless special pleading.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if that's what he opts to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

You were invited to express your disagreement with any of these examples, that you claimed had not been provided to you, despite your participation with each and every one. You declined, instead...you decided to do what you are now continuing to do.

Would you like me to link when that happened as well?

This is, btw, the second thread that I've wasted my time trying to explain comp sci and comp arch to you. It didn't take last time, it won't take this time. The only thing you've ever "observed" is the -presence- of human intellect in the vicinity of a single system. From your misapprehension of this part - that it requires/is the product of intellect.........you make a conclusion regarding the whole. Your participation in this thread has been the Inception Tribute of sloppy fucking thinking man. Mistakes buried in mistakes.

-The Pinnochio routine though, bellissimo! Exceeded my expectations by a wide margin.

[Heywood]

If his argument goes that all the evolutionary systems he's seen for which the origins are known are the result of intelligence, therefore all evolutionary systems are the result of intelligence, Heywood is making an arbitrary decision to cut things off at generic intelligence, when that's not at all the full scope of what he's saying. In reality, not only are all the evolutionary systems with origins he knows of the result of intelligence, they're specifically the result of human intelligence. Coupled to this, he's also never seen an evolutionary system for which the origin was a non-human or human-created intelligence, so shouldn't the premises of his own argument eliminate that possibility from the running? The argument, when we subtract the hidden special pleading, actually should lead him to the conclusion that evolutionary systems are all the result of human intelligence, even the ones that came into being before humans evolved as a result of them, refuting and showing the clear inadequacies in what he's saying.

What is the substantial difference between generic intellect and human intellect? If they are substantially the same thing I don't see what the issue is.

[Mudhammam]

There are multiple ways intellects can come into existence so you can't assume any particular intellect was the product of an evolutionary system.

I don't have to assume anything. The only examples that exist (apart from human designs, borrowing principles from nature) such as you, me, and every other animal that has a brain, are the results of evolution.

---

Altruism benefits another individual but not the species

OK, I'm still confuged.
If evolution is solely about changes in gene frequency, then why think that there are benefits for individuals and not the species? I don't see how you can accept one and reject the other.

If my girlfriend wasn't beckoning I would try to explain it further but there's A LOT of literature available online about the differences between kin selection and group selection. I see your point about Coyne's wording being a little confusing though.

[Esquilax]

What is the substantial difference between generic intellect and human intellect? If they are substantially the same thing I don't see what the issue is.

The difference is that you don't have any evidence of generic intellects existing or involving themselves in earthly affairs, which according to your own premises should preclude them from your list of possible origins for evolutionary systems.

They could be functionally identical to human intellects, but if they don't come from Earth, as the product of an Earthly evolutionary system, then you've never seen them before and therefore must eliminate them from the running. It's the flaw in your argument that turns the entire thing into a circular, self refuting mess.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see what the issue is.

Have you observed any "generic intellect". Do any of your examples contain any "generic intellects"

-Have you abandoned your claim of observation?

(I'm being generous, you built this whole thing around watching a spider sim, you have one example...wtf did you think was going to happen?)

[Heywood]

I don't have to assume anything. The only examples that exist (apart from human designs, borrowing principles from nature) such as you, me, and every other animal that has a brain, are the results of evolution.

You are assuming this evolutionary system did not require an intellect to design it or be a component of it without any reason.

Intellect create evolutionary systems, we know this to be a fact and we have plenty of observations of such. We have 0, zilch, nada....not even one iota of an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence sans intellect. You are arguing that the evolutionary system which created us is some sort of special case solely on an assumption that intellects can only come into existence via evolution......yet you admit that intellects can beget intellects so the assumption upon which you base your position is false.

[abaris]

Intellect create evolutionary systems, we know this to be a fact and we have plenty of observations of such.

What evidence do we have for evolutionary systems created by intellect?

Also, have you any idea how much evolutionary junk we carry in our bodies? Beginning with appendix and ending with a bone that once held a tail. A designer wouldn't have made these kinds of mistake.