Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 6:41 am
Indeed. You can call anything you like evolution. But if you plan on talking to anyone else, it's not such a good idea.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 9:31 am
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 9:55 am by Chas.)
(January 30, 2015 at 6:33 am)Heywood Wrote: (January 30, 2015 at 6:25 am)Xeno Wrote: You're the one switching definitions and claiming that we can call anything we like 'evolution'. To continue this discussion we have to agree on one definition of the word. Everyone but you agrees on the one used in the English language, you want your own. This is going nowhere. Whatever claim you're trying to support, you can't do that with a made-up definition of the word.
There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. You guys reject it because you think somehow that refutes my argument. Are you denying that biological evolution contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection? If you are then you don't really understand biological evolution.
Your definition does not include replication of replicators, so it is not a definition of biological evolution.
When you understand that, you will be closer to understanding biological evolution. If you reject it, you are being dishonest.
(January 30, 2015 at 6:20 am)Heywood Wrote: (January 30, 2015 at 6:15 am)Xeno Wrote: Let's define god as a red truck in my garage.
There's no red truck in my garage.
Therefore, there is no god.
For this discussion I accept your definition of god. If I present an observation of a red truck in your garage then I have proof of god's existence.
Do you agree or are you going to play games and switch definitions on me like Chas keeps trying to do?
Switching? No, correcting your inaccurate definition.
Stop being such a dishonest twat.
(January 29, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Heywood Wrote: (January 29, 2015 at 9:40 pm)Chas Wrote: I am not strawmanning as I am responding to your thesis which is flawed by your poor definition and understanding of biological evolution.
Your thesis as stated in your first post in this thread is that biological evolution requires intellect because all of the things you call evolution require intellect.
So, since you are not talking about something that adheres to the definition of biological evolution, what you are doing says nothing about biological evolution.
So what is your point?
Your definition, that "evolution is the imperfect replication of replicators" fails to adequately describe memetic evolution. Memes don't replicate themselves. Minds replicate memes. You are straw manning because your attacking my argument as if I was only talking about biological evolution when it is clear that I am talking about much more than just biological evolution.
Your fantasy, that there is only biological evolution, is just that....a fantasy. It is not refutation of the argument I have made.
I have never said there is only biological evolution, and it is either dishonesty or stupidity on your part to say that.
Your thesis is that these things you call evolution are created be intellect so biological evolution must be (as stated in your first post in this thread) is not supported because your examples do not encapsulate the core of biological evolution.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 67170
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 9:55 am
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 9:57 am by The Grand Nudger.)
86 pages says he wont........ 
-But it hardly matters, because even when we accept his definition and observations, even when we toil under that burden, the proposition is still demonstrably falsifiable and, conveniently, has already been falsified - by reference to his own chosen observations.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 9:58 am
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 10:31 am by Chas.)
(January 30, 2015 at 6:00 am)Heywood Wrote: (January 30, 2015 at 4:16 am)robvalue Wrote: So now we can call anything we like evolution, demonstrate that humans make it, then real evolution is therefor due to an intelligence?
If only actual science was this easy boys.
"Evolution" is just a label so yes we can call anything we like "evolution". But if you don't want to use that term....that is fine. Lets call any system which contains the following elements a "Heywood System". Those elements are replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Now I have observed different Heywood Systems and in each case where the origin of the system was known, the Heywood System required intellect to be implemented. Now given those observations I have reasonably concluded that it is likely all Heywood Systems require intellects.
Is biological evolution a Heywood System? Well yes it is because it contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. It satisfies the definition of Heywood System and therefore it is a Heywood System. Since it is likely that all Heywood Systems required intellect to be implemented it must also be likely that biological evolution required intellect to be implemented. To conclude otherwise would be to make a special pleading fallacy.
Now you can falsify the conclusion that it is likely that biological evolution required an intellect to be implemented by showing that it does not satisfy the definition of a Heywood System. Or you can falsify the conclusion by presenting an observation of a Heywood System which did not require an intellect to be implemented.
Playing games like Chas is playing...."oh you are not using my definition so you arugment is false"......doesn't really help you. If you want to refute my argument, you have to use my definitions otherwise you are just straw manning....like Chas.
I have bolded your fallacious reasoning. This fallacy has already been pointed out by others and you simply ignore it.
Proving something for a subset of a set does not prove it for the entire set; and that is what you are fallaciously attempting.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 9:58 am
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 9:59 am by robvalue.)
I think if we have learnt anything over this marathon, it's the importance of agreeing explicitly about definitions before starting a debate. The theist trick of switching meaning mid debate, or even mid sentence, has to be kept a constant eye on.
You can get 50 pages into a debate about God, then ask what the definition of God is and they don't know.
Posts: 67170
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 9:59 am
Meh, that's really only important when you're dealing with a competent debater over an issue which can truly be argued for either way, we aren't...so in this case it isn't.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 10:04 am
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 10:08 am by robvalue.)
We need more "faith" type christians in here. I can at least respect that someone says they have no reason at all other than "faith" to believe any of it. That is the honest answer. It's stupid, but it's honest. All this faffing about trying to half-science it is just embarressing. On the other hand, you can't exactly debate someone who will just answer every question with "faith" or "God". So I guess we're stumped :p
On the other hand, I don't think most people who actually say they believe really believe. They subscribe to the idea of it. Their actions betray them almost constantly.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 3:55 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 3:55 pm by Heywood.)
(January 30, 2015 at 9:58 am)Chas Wrote: Heywood Wrote:Is biological evolution a Heywood System? Well yes it is because it contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. It satisfies the definition of Heywood System and therefore it is a Heywood System. Since it is likely that all Heywood Systems required intellect to be implemented it must also be likely that biological evolution required intellect to be implemented. To conclude otherwise would be to make a special pleading fallacy.
Now you can falsify the conclusion that it is likely that biological evolution required an intellect to be implemented by showing that it does not satisfy the definition of a Heywood System. Or you can falsify the conclusion by presenting an observation of a Heywood System which did not require an intellect to be implemented.
Playing games like Chas is playing...."oh you are not using my definition so you arugment is false"......doesn't really help you. If you want to refute my argument, you have to use my definitions otherwise you are just straw manning....like Chas.
I have bolded your fallacious reasoning. This fallacy has already been pointed out by others and you simply ignore it.
Proving something for a subset of a set does not prove it for the entire set; and that is what you are fallaciously attempting.
Biological evolution is a subset of Heywood systems so conclusions drawn about all Heywood systems would apply to biological evolution as well. Further implementations of biological evolutionary systems have been observed requiring intellects. Craig Venter's creation of Mycoplasma Laboratorium started to evolve. Yes it is almost identical to the biological system which is responsible for you and me but it is not the same system as the one responsible for you and me.
Now it is a fact that all evolutionary systems(including biological ones) whose origins are known have all required intellects. To continue to believe that the evolutionary system which is responsible for you and me some how did not require an intellect requires a special pleading.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 5:01 pm
(January 30, 2015 at 6:33 am)Heywood Wrote: There is nothing wrong with my definition of evolution. You guys reject it because you think somehow that refutes my argument. Are you denying that biological evolution contains the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection? If you are then you don't really understand biological evolution.
No, but you're missing out the crucial element of reproduction.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 30, 2015 at 6:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 6:31 pm by Chas.)
(January 30, 2015 at 3:55 pm)Heywood Wrote: Biological evolution is a subset of Heywood systems so conclusions drawn about all Heywood systems would apply to biological evolution as well.
That sounds truish, but you have once again missed the point.
Call all Heywood systems the set H. Call biological evolution and anything isomorphic to it set E. Call all of your examples set X.
Set X and set E are not identical as set E includes replication.
Your set X is a subset of set H, as is set E. You cannot prove something for members of the subset X and say it applies to all of set H.
Quote:Further implementations of biological evolutionary systems have been observed requiring intellects. Craig Venter's creation of Mycoplasma Laboratorium started to evolve.
So what? Something created evolved.
Quote:Yes it is almost identical to the biological system which is responsible for you and me but it is not the same system as the one responsible for you and me.
The key word being 'almost'.
Quote:Now it is a fact that all evolutionary systems(including biological ones) whose origins are known have all required intellects. To continue to believe that the evolutionary system which is responsible for you and me some how did not require an intellect requires a special pleading.
No, it doesn't. See above.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
|
