Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 9:45 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 8:34 pm)Heywood Wrote: (January 6, 2015 at 8:19 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Human intellect creates 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 human intellect.
Therefore, it is most rational to assume that the evolutionary system that led to human intellects was created by human intellects.... oh wait... 
Intellect is a faculty which humans possess but there is no strong reason to believe it is exclusive to humans. We've observed but a tiny fraction of reality so we should have little confidence that human intellect is the only intellect which exists in reality as your argument suggest.
On the otherhand if evolutionary systems on this planet can exist sans intellect we should observe them coming into existence on this planet sans intellect. We don't. We have we have explored and observed this planet in great detail an it appears that evolutionary systems on this planet can only come into existence with the help of intellect.
What evolutionary systems do you suppose would come into existence?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 10:45 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 10:54 pm by Jenny A.)
Heywood,
You are forgetting a rather simple problem with your sample. All of the intelligently designed evolutionary systems you propose as examples are conscious attempts to copy natural evolution. It's a little like looking at numerous paintings and models of the Niagara Falls and concluding that Niagara Falls must be designed because all of the copies are. If you eliminate evolutionary systems not inspired by natural evolution, you won't have any designed systems at all.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 6, 2015 at 10:49 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Heywood Wrote: Your counter argument was merely contradiction and no substance. It reminded me of this:
No it didn't.
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 7, 2015 at 12:50 am
(January 6, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Heywood,
You are forgetting a rather simple problem with your sample. All of the intelligently designed evolutionary systems you propose as examples are conscious attempts to copy natural evolution. It's a little like looking at numerous paintings and models of the Niagara Falls and concluding that Niagara Falls must be designed because all of the copies are. If you eliminate evolutionary systems not inspired by natural evolution, you won't have any designed systems at all.
I won't have any evolutionary systems except memetic ones.....and those require intellect. If evolutionary systems can exist without the need of intellects we should see them coming into existence all the time. We see them coming into existence all the time now but that is only because they are the products of intellects.
Why don't we see evolutionary systems come into existence sans intellect? I asked this over and over and over......and I get the sound of crickets.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 7, 2015 at 12:59 am
(January 7, 2015 at 12:50 am)Heywood Wrote: Why don't we see evolutionary systems come into existence sans intellect? I asked this over and over and over......and I get the sound of crickets.
You got an answer from me demonstrating how malformed your question is. Convenient how you ignore it and just say nobody has answered you. 
Where have you seen intelligent life that didn't form as a part of Earth's evolutionary system, by the way?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 7, 2015 at 1:05 am
(January 7, 2015 at 12:50 am)Heywood Wrote: (January 6, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Heywood,
You are forgetting a rather simple problem with your sample. All of the intelligently designed evolutionary systems you propose as examples are conscious attempts to copy natural evolution. It's a little like looking at numerous paintings and models of the Niagara Falls and concluding that Niagara Falls must be designed because all of the copies are. If you eliminate evolutionary systems not inspired by natural evolution, you won't have any designed systems at all.
I won't have any evolutionary systems except memetic ones.....and those require intellect. If evolutionary systems can exist without the need of intellects we should see them coming into existence all the time. We see them coming into existence all the time now but that is only because they are the products of intellects.
Why don't we see evolutionary systems come into existence sans intellect? I asked this over and over and over......and I get the sound of crickets.
Why is that?
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 7, 2015 at 1:14 am
One is also driven to point out that, much like abiogenesis, it's entirely possible that evolutionary systems could emerge naturally under different conditions that were present some time in the past, but which haven't been for recorded human history. The Earth has changed a lot in the span of time that life has been present on it; I can't believe I let Heywood's fallacious "if it can't happen right now, it's impossible all the time" assumption go for so long.
As usual Heywood, your ignorance, human ignorance even, is not an excuse for claiming design. It's just one more problem with your argument to add to the list.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 7, 2015 at 1:15 am
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2015 at 1:16 am by Jenny A.)
I could program a gravity and planetary motion simulator (actually I'm sure there are some simulators already). Then we'd have gravity simulators and the only ones which are not the universe would all be designed by intellect. Would that prove gravity and inertia is a designed system? Can you not see the problem with that?
Secondly, the designed systems you would like to compare natural evolution of organisms on earth to, are created for one and only one purpose, evolution simulation. They don't do anything else. In this purpose builtness, they show all the hallmarks of design. That's quite different from the universe as a whole which just happens to facilitate the process of evolution in this one tiny corner. Or to put it another way, show that the universe is a system for evolution at all.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 7, 2015 at 1:21 am
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2015 at 1:40 am by Mudhammam.)
(January 6, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are assuming this evolutionary system did not require an intellect to design it or be a component of it without any reason. LOL. Yeah, just like I "assume" invisible "intellects" aren't pushing the planets around in orbit or needed to explain gravitation.
(January 6, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Heywood Wrote: 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. Humans are a special case of beings with an ability to abstract principles of motion and implement them into contrived systems in the same way that a spider is a special case of beings that can spin silk from their abdomen. You are arguing for an "intellect" that comes into being absent of any contingency on evolutionary processes... Human designs, such as AI, require brains that have evolved to imitate nature through concepts, and can facilitate intentional designs, which is why we don't see computers spontaneously appearing in thin air, as would be presumably required of your silver bullet that "designed" DNA. We have no examples or evidence for any intellects that have just "always existed," absent of any gradual process of selection. When you can come up with one, maybe you will cease making such an uninteresting and silly argument.
(January 6, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: (January 6, 2015 at 7:18 pm)JuliaL Wrote: 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.
Hopefully this helps to clarify:
"There are formidable theoretical problems with many concepts of group selection. These include the fact that individuals reproduce faster than groups, so that an adaptation that is good for groups (say, pure altruism, in which individuals sacrifice their reproduction through behaviors that bring no benefits to the genes producing such behaviors), won’t spread because the rate of propagation of groups is undermined by the evolutionary disadvantage of altruistic behaviors within groups (non-altruists, or “cheaters,” will replace the altruists since they get the benefits without the costs). In other words, altruistic groups may do better than non-altruistic ones, but that won’t produce species-wide altruism because non-altruists do better than altruists within groups—unless, of course, altruists aren’t “pure” altruists and their genes reap some benefit from the behavior, in which case it’s kin selection."
This is from Jerry Coyne's blog:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...selection/
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 7, 2015 at 12:15 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2015 at 12:29 pm by Heywood.)
(January 6, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You are forgetting a rather simple problem with your sample. All of the intelligently designed evolutionary systems you propose as examples are conscious attempts to copy natural evolution. It's a little like looking at numerous paintings and models of the Niagara Falls and concluding that Niagara Falls must be designed because all of the copies are. If you eliminate evolutionary systems not inspired by natural evolution, you won't have any designed systems at all.
Jenny A,
The game Chinese Whispers was not inspired by biological evolution but it is an evolutionary system created by intellects none the less.
(January 7, 2015 at 1:15 am)Jenny A Wrote: I could program a gravity and planetary motion simulator (actually I'm sure there are some simulators already). Then we'd have gravity simulators and the only ones which are not the universe would all be designed by intellect. Would that prove gravity and inertia is a designed system? Can you not see the problem with that?
Gravity is not a system. It is a force of nature believed to be carried by the graviton.
(January 7, 2015 at 1:14 am)Esquilax Wrote: One is also driven to point out that, much like abiogenesis, it's entirely possible that evolutionary systems could emerge naturally under different conditions that were present some time in the past, but which haven't been for recorded human history. The Earth has changed a lot in the span of time that life has been present on it; I can't believe I let Heywood's fallacious "if it can't happen right now, it's impossible all the time" assumption go for so long.
As usual Heywood, your ignorance, human ignorance even, is not an excuse for claiming design. It's just one more problem with your argument to add to the list.
Your "explanation"....if you can call it an explanation.....is the atheist's equivalent to "God works in mysterious ways". Your "explanation" explains nothing and is merely an attempt to hand wave away observations you find uncomfortable to confront.
(January 6, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (January 6, 2015 at 8:34 pm)Heywood Wrote: Intellect is a faculty which humans possess but there is no strong reason to believe it is exclusive to humans. We've observed but a tiny fraction of reality so we should have little confidence that human intellect is the only intellect which exists in reality as your argument suggest.
Oh, so we're only bound to consider possibilities exclusively by observation when it suits you! Gotcha. 
The argument you made is logically sound, it just isn't compelling because you haven't observed very much of reality.
|
