Detecting design or intent in nature

[Cyberman]

And again, Heywood, you're bastardising the word "observation".

[Creed of Heresy]

Precisely! If biological evolution is not instigated by an intelligence (and as shown, if you take the possible environments of early Earth into account via simulation using information known by studies and analysis, the start of biological evolution did not require intelligence to start), then not only is there that one bit of observed evidence for evolution without need for intelligence, but there is also zero examples of evolution that do require intelligence, as derived evolution is not real evolution!

I love biology. <3

---

And again, Heywood, you're bastardising the word "observation".

That's OK, bastardized or not, all forms of observation fit with the Miller-Urey chain of experiments, so wriggling out of this is pretty much impossible.

[Heywood]

And it is not evolution because you say it is not? Look if we are to have this discussion we have to agree what is evolution and what isn't. Once we agree on that we can look at something and if it agrees with our definition of evolution then it is an example of evolution.

This is the definition of evolution I presented. Do you find it unreasonable? Nobody seemed to object to it.

I would define evolution as follows:

Evolution is a process whereby changes in the heritable traits which reside in a given population accumulate through a selection mechanism over successive generations. The accumulation of these changes can result in an increase or decrease in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge.

Key attributes of evolution:
replication
heritable traits
change
selection

Computers don't have heritable traits because they don't reproduce. Variables in a computer program are not "a population". Hardware doesn't accumulate changes; it occupies differing states.

That you can't see the difference between a program which models evolution and a system that actually evolves just means you've thrown a spanner.

Replication is required for evolution, not necessarily reproduction. Within the spider sim is a set of variables which is what evolves.....not the computer. This set of variables is the population. In the spider sim it happens to be a population of one. This set of variables is passed on from one cycle of the process to the next or replicated. The variables contained within the set are the heritable traits. A random number generator changes the value of one or more these variables in the set at the beginning of the next cycle. If the change improves the performance of the set of variables the change is kept. If the change makes the performance of the set of variable worse, it is discarded.

The process of evolution found this solution for Megaman to defeat Airman. It did it by playing games over and over again(replication). The strategy was passed down from one game to next(heritiable traits). Small random changes were made in that strategy with each game(change). If the change resulted in a higher score it was kept, if it didn't it was discarded(selection).

---

On top of everything else, these models of evolutionary systems are models of biological evolution, or simulations inspired by biological evolution. So whether these systems have their ultimate genesis in a system which was designed depends on whether biological evolution is designed or not. To borrow a page from the creationists, if these simulations are actually evolution, then they are derived evolution and not real evolution because their principles of operation are stolen from the original biological system. Derived evolution is not real evolution.

5 examples of evolutionary systems were given in this thread......some of which were not intentionally created to simulate biological evolution. The evolution of cars for instance.

---

So in closing, the conduction of the Miller-Urey experiment and its more advanced, diverse, and extensive successor experiments have demonstrated that evolution can indeed come about without intelligence via simulations, which you yourself have admitted are quite acceptable.

Quick note: In case you are not aware, amino acids are the most basic forms of organic material. RNA to DNA = the earliest stages of the process of biological evolution!

Where do I collect my prize?

The Miller-Urey experiment and its extensive successor experiments never resulted in the process of evolution getting "kicked started".

Good try, but this observation fails to support proposition 2.

[Chas]

Evolution is not a system just like accidents are not a system.

Yeah, I said that. I said evolution is a process. Systems which use the process of evolution can be called evolutionary systems. You can't find observations which support proposition 2. Instead of being honest with yourself and coming to grips with the fact that there are certain observations(or lack thereof) of reality which conflict with your world view, you are trying to find fault with the propositions. This nit picking is really grasping at straws.

If you don't like "system" then toss it out. It doesn't help you. Consider these two propositions instead:

Proposition 1: all initial implementations of the process of evolution require intellects.
Proposition 2: all initial implementations of the process of evolution do not require intellects.

Please present an observation which supports the modified proposition 2. Your bacteria example doesn't work because you did not observe the initial implementation of that process which resulted in bacteria eating nylon.

That is a distinction without a difference.

[Angrboda]

Computers don't have heritable traits because they don't reproduce. Variables in a computer program are not "a population". Hardware doesn't accumulate changes; it occupies differing states.

That you can't see the difference between a program which models evolution and a system that actually evolves just means you've thrown a spanner.

Replication is required for evolution, not necessarily reproduction. Within the spider sim is a set of variables which is what evolves.....not the computer. This set of variables is the population. In the spider sim it happens to be a population of one. This set of variables is passed on from one cycle of the process to the next or replicated. The variables contained within the set are the heritable traits. A random number generator changes the value of one or more these variables in the set at the beginning of the next cycle. If the change improves the performance of the set of variables the change is kept. If the change makes the performance of the set of variable worse, it is discarded.

The process of evolution found this solution for Megaman to defeat Airman. It did it by playing games over and over again(replication). The strategy was passed down from one game to next(heritiable traits). Small random changes were made in that strategy with each game(change). If the change resulted in a higher score it was kept, if it didn't it was discarded(selection).

I'm well acquainted with how these simulations work. I studied computer science in college as well as higher mathematics. I've been working with computers for 35 years. A simulated hurricane is still not a real hurricane, no matter how many analogies between the two you can find.

[Chas]

The answer to your "proposition 2" about one observable case has been demonstrated over and over again. You keep saying "that doesn't count." You say you refuted it when Stimbo presented it. I did not see it, though I looked through many of your posts (I hope you appreciate the effort I had to put in to wade through over 60 pages of posts to do this) to see if you indeed had.

Maybe I missed it (plausible), but all the same, the only refutations of anything I found were refutations that essentially amounted to a response that is "nuh uh!" If you would repeat it for me, it might help me register the point. May be a rough thing to do, but, again, I DID go through 60 pages of posts to try to locate it myself.

We have no observations of the implementation of the evolutionary system which produced Stimbo. Remember we are considering these two very reasonable propositions....both of which cannot be true:

Proposition 1: All evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.
Proposition 2: Not all evolutionary systems require intellect to be implemented.

Maybe if you consider these two proposition instead it will help you see why Stimbo's observation fails to falsify propostion 1.
Proposition Alpha: All running internal combustion engines required a starter.
Proposition Beta: All running internal combustion engines did not require a starter.

You don't falsify proposition Alpha by providing an observation of a running internal combustion engine. You only falsify proposition Alpha by providing an observation of an internal combustion engine spontaneously beginning to run without the help of starter.

There is nothing to be implemented. Evolution occurs due to the conditions already stated.

Please describe precisely what it is that must be implemented.

You can't, because your thesis is silly and your demand for 'implementation' utterly fallacious.

[Angrboda]

5 examples of evolutionary systems were given in this thread......some of which were not intentionally created to simulate biological evolution. The evolution of cars for instance.

Cars don't evolve either. You're playing on things that are analogous to evolution, not things that are examples of evolution. Biological evolution is what you're targeting, but you're all over the map with similar=same. All the word evolution means is change. Outside the strict model of biological evolution, you are talking analogies. Not identities.


I jumped in late. What 5 systems were given.

[Heywood]

I'm well acquainted with how these simulations work. I studied computer science in college as well as higher mathematics. I've been working with computers for 35 years. A simulated hurricane is still not a real hurricane, no matter how many analogies between the two you can find.

The process is an evolutionary process if it contains the elements of evolutionary processes. Those elements are:

Replication
Heritable characteristics
Change
Selection

The process that is being carried out in the computer contains those elements, therefore it is reasonable to call the process being carried out in the computer evolutionary.

The evolution of cars was not carried out a computer but is evolution non the less because it contains the elements of evolution.

Cars are replicated on the assembly line(replication)
Their form is determined by a design(heritable characteristic).
The design is changed slightly from model year to model year(change).
If the market doesn't like the design change it is discarded(selection).

[Creed of Heresy]

The Miller-Urey experiment and its extensive successor experiments never resulted in the process of evolution getting "kicked started".

Good try, but this observation fails to support proposition 2.

Aaactually, yes it did. It proved the chemical origin of life.

From whence the chemistry came, came the RNA, came the DNA. How do we know this? How is it observed?

Well, for one thing, if it hadn't, you and me would not be sitting here talking right now and Earth would be a very boring place, indeed. We have the start of evolution in the creation of RNA through the materials present on Earth in its infancy proven. In other words we have evolution at its very beginning; the evolution of the inorganic into the organic. We have the demonstration of evolutionary changes in the ecosphere.

Start and middle, and eventually the end, but that's for the future and not the present.

I dunno how you get that it wasn't observed. XD That's precisely what happened. That's like me making a spark with flint and tinder, embers beginning, me leaving for a few moments, coming back, and a fire merrily roaring in the firepit and you saying "you didn't observe the process of the fire burning." I sure did, actually. I didn't watch the fire grow, but the embers were there and they were starting to burn when I went off to get more firewood and when I came back the fire was burning. What logical conclusion otherwise could come to be?

Do or do not. There is no try. And I did not try. I did.

[Heywood]

5 examples of evolutionary systems were given in this thread......some of which were not intentionally created to simulate biological evolution. The evolution of cars for instance.

Cars don't evolve either. You're playing on things that are analogous to evolution, not things that are examples of evolution. Biological evolution is what you're targeting, but you're all over the map with similar=same. All the word evolution means is change. Outside the strict model of biological evolution, you are talking analogies. Not identities.


I jumped in late. What 5 systems were given.

It seems that you are rejecting any definition of evolution that isn't strictly the biological evolutionary system which produced us. Your saying cars didn't evolve because they are not biological entities. Why is that only biological entities can evolve? Why can't things other than biological entities be subject to the process of evolution?

The 5 systems were:
The spider sim
Tribes
Cars
Chinese Whispers(a game played in classrooms)
Medical specialties