Detecting design or intent in nature

[downbeatplumb]

Evolution doesn't always lead to advancement. Some evolved abilities can be lost if they no longer contribute to fitness.

No. If something has evolved it is always present in the genes and it is easier for it to emerge again later.

You still get people with tails and full body hair for example.

This is actually kind of a scary thought for me because humans of course are evolving. Imagine that if in the near future we create machine minds which are intellectually superior to us. Suppose those minds are benevolent to us and take care of us. If our own intelligence is no longer contributing to our fitness we may loose it. A million years from now, our descendants might be as intelligent as cows.

What do you mean "a million years from now"?

Go chew that cud boy.

[Heywood]

Evolution doesn't always lead to advancement. Some evolved abilities can be lost if they no longer contribute to fitness.

No. If something has evolved it is always present in the genes and it is easier for it to emerge again later.

You still get people with tails and full body hair for example.

Here is an article that gives an example of what you are talking about:

reverse evolution found in seattle fish

Knowing that our dumb as cow descendants will have non-manifested genes for smartness is not much comfort to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Reverse" evolution...lol....like it has some sort of direction.

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Your own "smartness" gene clearly didn't manifest itself and you seem to be fine.

[Angrboda]

Let me see if I can sum up this argument.

If all evolutionary systems or the implementation of them involve intellects, then the original biological evolutionary system likely involves intellects.

You challenge us to find one evolutionary system that doesn't involve intellects.

Let's eliminate the major classes. Plants? Nope, part of biology. Animals? Nope, involves minds. Viruses, bacteria? Nope.

So what are we left with? Rocks and water. So your conclusion is that if I can't find rocks or water that naturally forms an evolutionary system, the odds are the universe's creation involves intellect.

Consider me underwhelmed by the persuasiveness of your argument.

---

But wait. In Dawkins' the Blind Watchmaker, there's a chapter about how silicates (clay) could form an evolutionary system! Holy coinkydink, Batman!

[bennyboy]

Which has been done, and yet you persist...so clearly...that's not -all- it takes to satisfy.

It has not been done. Your claim that it has been done but it is just buried in this thread is like a fundamentalist claiming the proof of God is buried in the bible. Saying what you would like reality to be does not change reality.

You still haven't explained why anyone else has to falsify your position. You have this idea that you want people to believe. You have to demonstrate that your idea represents reality. That's it. That's the end of the process. If a kid came here and made a thread that the tooth fairy was real, because you couldn't prove to her it wasn't, how would you react? Almost the same as you are being treated: first with patience, and eventually with annoyance. That's because your argument and hers are identical.

But the problem now is that you are getting boring. You have no recourse left except to keep parrotting on about other people accepting the BOP for the negative form of your positive assertion. Unless you say something interesting or intelligent soon, you are going to lose your audience.

See, that's the problem with illogical arguments-- not that you will ever be proven wrong, but that people will stop listening to you.

[helyott]

No. If something has evolved it is always present in the genes and it is easier for it to emerge again later.

You still get people with tails and full body hair for example.

Here is an article that gives an example of what you are talking about:

reverse evolution found in seattle fish

Knowing that our dumb as cow descendants will have non-manifested genes for smartness is not much comfort to me.

Reverse evolution doesn't mean anything.
It isn't scientific to say that.
Evolution don't have a goal.
It s a concept.
It s a way to explain why there are so much variabilies in "nature " and in human being too.
Why ? Evolution is the constant adaptation to an environnement.
Why are you different from your sister or your brother ? Variability. Is is programmed ?
No. It s just the consequence of a kind of reproduction that can be found in nature.
Some organisms are cloning themselves some of them in some cases can clone themselves, others can reproduce themselves only why sex.

When you claim that an evoluting system can't be created without intelligence. It s not a proof.
It s a claim. Only a claim. You can say it all the time it isn't a proof.

lots of people believe that human kind is the top of the evolution.
But, in fact, if you look at the tree of life, each living organism is as evoluted as the others. http://smanteau.fr/wp-content/uploads/20...age_57.png

lot of people will answer that it's a joke, a tree can't be as evoluted as a human being.

But, trees and plants have more genes than human beings.

Does "evoluted" means adapted ?
Does it means recently appeared ?
Does it means just born the day before ?
Does it means intelligent ?

But when you pretend and repeat time after time and claim that your hypothesis isn't unreasonable, it s a joke. Your are not able to have any true example of what you are telling is true.

There is no analogy betwen life on earth and life simulated on a computer. Life on earth is to life simulated on a computer what a bird is to a plane.

Analogy isn't reality.
It a metaphor.
But with metaphors we don't catch truth.

[Chas]

I have not said that.
However, your whole thesis is about demonstrating that biological evolution requires intellect. If your 'evolution' examples aren't isomorphic to biological evolution, your argument becomes trivial and uninteresting.

The examples and biological evolution are isomorphic because they all satisfy the same definition. The definition is reasonable and it isn't specific to evolutionary systems which required intellect.

Your argument that replication has to be self-reproduction is hallow and just an attempt to sneak in a new definition of evolution through the back door. You do this so that you can then claim the examples are not isomorphic with biological evolution.

Your definition of evolution is incomplete; I am not sneaking anything in, just correcting you.

To be isomorphic with biological evolution, replication of replicators is required. Do you not understand isomorphism? Apparently not.

You're straw manning.

You are so full of shit. You don't even understand what constitutes a straw man.

[Heywood]

But wait. In Dawkins' the Blind Watchmaker, there's a chapter about how silicates (clay) could form an evolutionary system! Holy coinkydink, Batman!

How silicates could form an evolutionary system? Thats a cool story....but without an observation of such, that is all that it is....a cool story. Plenty of religions have cool stories too. I don't find cool stories to be compelling reasons to contradict observations. If there is an observation of silicates forming an evolutionary system without intellects, I 'd like to see it as this is the kind of thing I would expect to see if evolutionary systems can form without intellects. I am serious...I have asked myself many times why don't we observe minerals evolving?

Anyways, Rasetsu, the reason we got here some 80+ pages later is the original poster wanted to know how we detect design. I explained that the way we know something is designed or not is by experience. If our experience is that watches are always the products of intelligent watch makers then whenever we run across a watch......even if we didn't observe it coming into existence....we can safely say it was the product of an intelligent watch maker. There is nothing unreasonable about my explanation on how we detect design.

We only observe evolutionary systems coming into existence with the help of intellects. We only observe watches coming into existence with the help of intellects. If you want to believe that evolutionary systems or watches can come into existence without the help of intellect.....that is your business.

---

Your definition of evolution is incomplete; I am not sneaking anything in, just correcting you.

To be isomorphic with biological evolution, replication of replicators is required. Do you not understand isomorphism? Apparently not.

You are so full of shit. You don't even understand what constitutes a straw man.

There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. It is perfectly reasonable. I have corrected you on this many times. Perhaps you are just too thick headed to understand evolution.

Regarding your strawmanning the facts are this:
1. You are trying to narrow the definition of evolution being used in the argument I have made.
2. After narrowing the definition of evolution you then claim the observations presented don't satisfy the definition so the conclusion is wrong.
3. You are committing a straw man because you are attacking an argument I did not make. I made an argument using one definition of evolution, you are attacking an argument using a different definition for evolution.

If you admit that if my definition of evolution were true, then my argument would be valid....I would accept that you are merely challenging the definition that I am using and that you are not making a straw man argument. Will you concede that if my definition were true there is nothing wrong with my argument?

[bennyboy]

So much hypocrisy, I can't stand it.

Dude, YOU are the one playing the semantic run-around game. We don't NEED even to define evolution. We can be satisfied that you can show that ANY deliberately-organized system exists outside of Earth. So far, you have: "Stuff on Earth was created by human minds, so the evidence is that stuff not on Earth was created by a mind." It's a shitty argument, regardless of what definition of evolution is getting batted about at the moment.

It's also a convenient red herring for you. You can make the whole debate a semantic one, thereby making everyone forget that you are making a positive assertion with no good evidence. You're like the fat chick in every bar that keeps shouting, "Stop staring at my tits!" while making absolutely sure that nobody has the chance to fully comprehend that behind those floppy breasts lies an even floppier intellect.

[Chas]

Your definition of evolution is incomplete; I am not sneaking anything in, just correcting you.

To be isomorphic with biological evolution, replication of replicators is required. Do you not understand isomorphism? Apparently not.

You are so full of shit. You don't even understand what constitutes a straw man.

There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. It is perfectly reasonable. I have corrected you on this many times. Perhaps you are just too thick headed to understand evolution.

Regarding your strawmanning the facts are this:
1. You are trying to narrow the definition of evolution being used in the argument I have made.
2. After narrowing the definition of evolution you then claim the observations presented don't satisfy the definition so the conclusion is wrong.
3. You are committing a straw man because you are attacking an argument I did not make. I made an argument using one definition of evolution, you are attacking an argument using a different definition for evolution.

If you admit that if my definition of evolution were true, then my argument would be valid....I would accept that you are merely challenging the definition that I am using and that you are not making a straw man argument. Will you concede that if my definition were true there is nothing wrong with my argument?

I am not creating a straw man of your argument, I am pointing out that your thesis is utterly flawed.

Neither your definition nor your examples are isomorphic to biological evolution.
Therefore, your arguments do not apply to biological evolution.