Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

It does not show man creates " biological evolutionary systems". It shows we can create partially synthetic species of bacteria that is capable of replicating and that's all it shows, we didn't create a new system of evolution.

It does show that man creates biological evolutionary systems if we accept Chas' definition of evolution for the reasons I have given. However If we accept my definition then you could argue it does not. Under my definition reproduction isn't necessary for evolution, only replication. You could argue that Venter, in creating Mycoplasma Laboratorium, was simply replicating an existing organism with a few small changes. Mycoplasma Laboratorium was a nearly one to one copy of Mycoplasma Mycoides after all.

I think specific methods of replication to be immaterial. Replication has to be there but it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific kind of replication. I don't see why evolutionary systems can't change their methods of replication over time. For instance in the far future, perhaps people design their children in a computer and then print them out on a sophisticated 3D printer.

I an willing to accept that Mycoplasma Laboratorium is just an existing extension of a previously existing evolutionary system. However it is only a matter of time before humans create a biological organism completely from scratch. We've already come up with XNA which could be used instead of DNA or RNA.

---

Your stipulations about "observing the implementation" don't leave much room, do they, you naughty little sand-filterer? The reason nobody comes up with anything is because they only care about one kind of evolution-- actual evolution, the kind we observe in animals, for which there is no actual evidence of intellect.

Since you're playing loosy-goosy with definitions, I'd say that any persistent pattern that replicates and changes in response to external stimuli would meet a loose definition of evolution. How about crystals? Each new iteration of a crystal's structure does so in response to the existing crystal, i.e. it's "parent." And a snowflake's shape "evolves" in response to variations in climate.

I predict that whatever free-style definition I make, you will shoot it down, but whatever arbitrary human system you make up that are kind of like evolution, you will find it supporting the conclusion that non-human systems are designed by intellect. The special pleading begins in
3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

Your definition defines a set. My definition defines a different set. Inspecting elements of your set allows you to draw conclusions about your set. Inspecting elements in your set does not allow you to draw conclusions about my set.

Now the definition of my set is not very narrow. It certainly isn't designed by me to filter out non intellect created evolutionary systems. I simply took a reasonable definition of evolution and now I am inspecting elements of the set it defines. Its not my fault that so far they all turn out to require intellect to come into existence and I shouldn't turn a blind eye to what I observe simply to avoid offending your atheistic faith.

[Mudhammam]

Your definition defines a set. My definition defines a different set. Inspecting elements of your set allows you to draw conclusions about your set. Inspecting elements in your set does not allow you to draw conclusions about my set.

Now the definition of my set is not very narrow. It certainly isn't designed by me to filter out non intellect created evolutionary systems. I simply took a reasonable definition of evolution and now I am inspecting elements of the set it defines. Its not my fault that so far they all turn out to require intellect to come into existence and I shouldn't turn a blind eye to what I observe simply to avoid offending your atheistic faith.

Well, please don't stop being skeptical now. Since you've insisted that all the examples you observed were created by beings with either a vagina or a penis, your abuse of logic also demands that the designer of biological evolution had a vagina or a penis. My guess is vagina. Yours?

[Mr.wizard]

It does not show man creates " biological evolutionary systems". It shows we can create partially synthetic species of bacteria that is capable of replicating and that's all it shows, we didn't create a new system of evolution.

It does show that man creates biological evolutionary systems if we accept Chas' definition of evolution for the reasons I have given. However If we accept my definition then you could argue it does not. Under my definition reproduction isn't necessary for evolution, only replication. You could argue that Venter, in creating Mycoplasma Laboratorium, was simply replicating an existing organism with a few small changes. Mycoplasma Laboratorium was a nearly one to one copy of Mycoplasma Mycoides after all.

I think specific methods of replication to be immaterial. Replication has to be there but it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific kind of replication. I don't see why evolutionary systems can't change their methods of replication over time. For instance in the far future, perhaps people design their children in a computer and then print them out on a sophisticated 3D printer.

I an willing to accept that Mycoplasma Laboratorium is just an existing extension of a previously existing evolutionary system. However it is only a matter of time before humans create a biological organism completely from scratch. We've already come up with XNA which could be used instead of DNA or RNA.

---

Your stipulations about "observing the implementation" don't leave much room, do they, you naughty little sand-filterer? The reason nobody comes up with anything is because they only care about one kind of evolution-- actual evolution, the kind we observe in animals, for which there is no actual evidence of intellect.

Since you're playing loosy-goosy with definitions, I'd say that any persistent pattern that replicates and changes in response to external stimuli would meet a loose definition of evolution. How about crystals? Each new iteration of a crystal's structure does so in response to the existing crystal, i.e. it's "parent." And a snowflake's shape "evolves" in response to variations in climate.

I predict that whatever free-style definition I make, you will shoot it down, but whatever arbitrary human system you make up that are kind of like evolution, you will find it supporting the conclusion that non-human systems are designed by intellect. The special pleading begins in
3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

Your definition defines a set. My definition defines a different set. Inspecting elements of your set allows you to draw conclusions about your set. Inspecting elements in your set does not allow you to draw conclusions about my set.

Now the definition of my set is not very narrow. It certainly isn't designed by me to filter out non intellect created evolutionary systems. I simply took a reasonable definition of evolution and now I am inspecting elements of the set it defines. Its not my fault that so far they all turn out to require intellect to come into existence and I shouldn't turn a blind eye to what I observe simply to avoid offending your atheistic faith.

Biological evolution is just genetic change over generations, small or large. I know the definition of Biological Evolution so there is no need to use a definition that you came up with. All they have done is created a selection pressure, its the same as dog breeding, you can breed dogs to cause changes to the population, that does not mean you created a new form of evolution.

[bennyboy]

Your stipulations about "observing the implementation" don't leave much room, do they, you naughty little sand-filterer? The reason nobody comes up with anything is because they only care about one kind of evolution-- actual evolution, the kind we observe in animals, for which there is no actual evidence of intellect.

Since you're playing loosy-goosy with definitions, I'd say that any persistent pattern that replicates and changes in response to external stimuli would meet a loose definition of evolution. How about crystals? Each new iteration of a crystal's structure does so in response to the existing crystal, i.e. it's "parent." And a snowflake's shape "evolves" in response to variations in climate.

I predict that whatever free-style definition I make, you will shoot it down, but whatever arbitrary human system you make up that are kind of like evolution, you will find it supporting the conclusion that non-human systems are designed by intellect. The special pleading begins in
3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

Your definition defines a set.

No it doesn't, any more than "we don't know what caused it" defines a set for you which is distinct from "we made it." My set is a subset of the Big Set of "all things people choose to call evolution." And since there are quadrillions of crystals in the world, I have excellent evidence that 99.999999% of the Big Set of things people call evolution are crystals. Therefore, by Heywoodian logic, there's a 99.999999% chance that biological evolution is a crystal.

Yay! I win! I'm really starting to enjoy Heywoodian logic.

[Angrboda]

M. laboratorium is a biological organism altered and replicated by artificial means. It is a part of biological evolution, not of Heywood systems. They wouldn't have been able to do it without the design from nature.

I'll take it that you reject Chas's definition that biological evolution requires reproduction? The first Mycoplasma Laboratorium did not come into existence via reproduction but was replicated much like a car is replicated. If you accepted Chas's definition you cannot then claim it is part of the same biological evolutionary system which is responsible for us.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later....short on time these days.

My mistake. Venter group did not artificially replicate a bacterium, only the genome. They "transplanted the synthesized genome into the existing cell of a Mycoplasma capricolum bacterium that had had its DNA removed."

[Heywood]

My mistake. Venter group did not artificially replicate a bacterium, only the genome. They "transplanted the synthesized genome into the existing cell of a Mycoplasma capricolum bacterium that had had its DNA removed."

After the DNA is removed you no longer had a living individual Mycoplasma carpricolum but instead a non living shell. Then DNA, which was synthesized from a computer record, was inserted into it. The result was an individual that reproduced into billions. Its it certainly not life from scratch and no one claims that it is. I tend to think of it as the microscopic version of Mary Shelley's monster.

Still the species created is unique. In its DNA is encoded quotes from literature, an email address, and a web address.

---

Biological evolution is just genetic change over generations, small or large. I know the definition of Biological Evolution so there is no need to use a definition that you came up with. All they have done is created a selection pressure, its the same as dog breeding, you can breed dogs to cause changes to the population, that does not mean you created a new form of evolution.

Taking the attitude that only biological things can evolve is simply being narrow minded.

---

You'll have to refresh my memory on what the spider sim is. However, if it's like most simulations based on genetic algorithms, I'd argue that it does require the involvement of intellect in its operation. I don't know whether you're old enough to remember text based adventure games, but they were very popular at one time. "Text adventures are one of the oldest types of computer games and form a subset of the adventure genre. The player uses text input to control the game, and the game state is relayed to the player via text output. Input is usually provided by the player in the form of simple sentences such as "get key" or "go east", which are interpreted by a text parser."(Wikipedia) In the game you would visit different locations described in text, such as, "You are in a clearing. Paths lead east and west." The point to all this is that the person playing the game had to "imagine" what the locations would be like if they were real. The same thing occurs in computer games. A two-dimensional display splashes a bunch of colors on the screen such that our brain and visual systems interpret them as 3D objects and motion. In a simple chess game, you have to interpret the display as a virtual chessboard. In the spider sim, if it's the one I'm thinking of, you have to interpret the image as a moving robot; else it's just numbers and colors. So all computer simulations require involvement of intellect to imagine them as if they were real.

I understand the argument that intellect is required to interpret the generated art work as being a simulation of biological evolution. But I don't want you to consider any of that. What I want you to consider is the part the end user does not see. Inside that computer is a set of variables. That set of variables undergoes replication, change, and selection. Once the system is set up and the "go" button is pushed. That set of variables will undergo evolution without any further involvement of an intellect just like biological evolution. Unplug the computer screen and the evolution still happens even though nobody can see it.

It is conceivable that some day humans will create machines which reproduce, change, and are selected. These machines will begin to evolve. They may evolve into grey goo.

[bennyboy]

Taking the attitude that only biological things can evolve is simply being narrow minded.

With this, I very much agree. I also agree that you can create new kinds of evolution-- memes are an example of this idea in action.

[Chas]

Taking the attitude that only biological things can evolve is simply being narrow minded.

Depends on your definition of 'evolution'. Since you are making an argument about biological evolution, then any other example is required to incorporate the salient features.

Please demonstrate another example of replicators replicating to compare it with. Cars and birds' nests don't cut it.

However, if you are now talking about evolution in a broader, less technical sense such as the evolution of computers, or the evolution of thought in the political world, or memes, then this has nothing much to do with biological evolution.

[robvalue]

Instead of two goalposts I think only one has been set up. You have to kick it somewhere past the post. Or near it. I don't know where the goal line is either. And there's no ball!

[Heywood]

However, if you are now talking about evolution in a broader, less technical sense such as the evolution of computers, or the evolution of thought in the political world, or memes, then this has nothing much to do with biological evolution.

I am talking about every evolutionary system which contains the following elements: replication, heritable traits, change, and selection. Those elements define the set of things I am talking about. Biological evolution just happens to belong in that set because it is a system which contains those elements.

What you are doing is making a special pleading. You are saying that even though Biological evolution contains those elements it really doesn't belong to the set of things I am talking about.....that somehow it is a special case. You are making this special pleading without any justification.

---

Instead of two goalposts I think only one has been set up. You have to kick it somewhere past the post. Or near it. I don't know where the goal line is either. And there's no ball!

I have set up only one goal post. Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection. In 96 pages this goal post has not moved. Your task is a simple one. Present an observation of a system which contains those elements, which was observed coming into existence sans intellect.