Another way to look at evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2013, 05:53 PM
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(18-04-2013 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-04-2013 05:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There is no evidence the last photon of light to strike your face traveled at c through a vacuum, yet we except it as fact that it does because every other photon we observed traveling thru a vacuum did so with a speed of c.

As you observe more and more evolutionary systems which are the products of intellect, and never observe evolutionary systems which are not the products of intellect, the more confident you can be of the claim that all evolutionary systems are the products of intellect.

Unless you have some direct evidence that the evoutionary system which produced us was not the product of an intellect, or unless you have some direct evidence of the exstence of evolutionary systems which did not require intellect, there is no substantive reason not to believe all evolutionary systems require intellect.

I don't know what evolutionary systems you are talking about except man-made simulations of evolution.

There is no evidence of intellect in biological evolution. You are making a claim, provide evidence.

Your understanding of burden of proof is flawed.

I consider the following premises:
1. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us required intellect
2. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us did not require an intellect.

I reject premise 2 because the observable evidence suggest that all evolutionary systems require intellect. Now you can show that my conclusion is false by presenting an evolutionary system which did not require intellect. I keep asking you for this evidence in multiple threads but you are like a findamentalist whose argument is that I should believe you simply because you are telling the "truth". Present some evidence please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2013, 06:14 PM
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(18-04-2013 05:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-04-2013 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know what evolutionary systems you are talking about except man-made simulations of evolution.

There is no evidence of intellect in biological evolution. You are making a claim, provide evidence.

Your understanding of burden of proof is flawed.

I consider the following premises:
1. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us required intellect
2. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us did not require an intellect.

I reject premise 2 because the observable evidence suggest that all evolutionary systems require intellect. Now you can show that my conclusion is false by presenting an evolutionary system which did not require intellect. I keep asking you for this evidence in multiple threads but you are like a findamentalist whose argument is that I should believe you simply because you are telling the "truth". Present some evidence please.


The evidence is that evolutionary theory explains all the observations and makes testable predictions without including intellect.
You are claiming that it requires intellect, but you need to show how that is required. You have failed to do so.

Stop being intellectually dishonest by trying to shift the burden of proof.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
18-04-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(18-04-2013 06:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-04-2013 05:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I consider the following premises:
1. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us required intellect
2. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us did not require an intellect.

I reject premise 2 because the observable evidence suggest that all evolutionary systems require intellect. Now you can show that my conclusion is false by presenting an evolutionary system which did not require intellect. I keep asking you for this evidence in multiple threads but you are like a findamentalist whose argument is that I should believe you simply because you are telling the "truth". Present some evidence please.


The evidence is that evolutionary theory explains all the observations and makes testable predictions without including intellect.
You are claiming that it requires intellect, but you need to show how that is required. You have failed to do so.

Stop being intellectually dishonest by trying to shift the burden of proof.

I am not claiming that evolution requires intellect. You are making the same error as Phaedrus. You conflate a process with a system. I am claiming that evolutionary systems require intellect. My evidence is the fact that all evolutionary system in which the details of origination are know are the products of intellect. The burden of proof rests with you to show that the one evolutionary system in which the details of origination are not known is an outlier in that it was a special case and did not require an intellect.

You are making the extraordinary claim, while I am making the ordinary one. Now I know you don't see it that way because you have been brainwashed by your atheism but what is observable substantiates my position. Evolutionary systems seem to require intellect. I think I would need to go to my feet now to count how many times I have asked you to provide proof that evolutionary systems do not require intellect. Instead of providing that proof you dodge and weave like a creationist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2013, 06:52 PM
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(18-04-2013 05:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-04-2013 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know what evolutionary systems you are talking about except man-made simulations of evolution.

There is no evidence of intellect in biological evolution. You are making a claim, provide evidence.

Your understanding of burden of proof is flawed.

I consider the following premises:
1. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us required intellect
2. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us did not require an intellect.

I reject premise 2 because the observable evidence suggest that all evolutionary systems require intellect. Now you can show that my conclusion is false by presenting an evolutionary system which did not require intellect. I keep asking you for this evidence in multiple threads but you are like a findamentalist whose argument is that I should believe you simply because you are telling the "truth". Present some evidence please.

The observable evidence does not suggest that. You presuppose that intellect was necessary for biological evolution.

We have two examples of evolutionary systems occurring without the need for intellect:

Biological evolution
Human memetics

Human ideas and culture undergo evolution, and there is no evidence of an intellect required to design the mechanism by which intellect involves. Get that? Intellect is itself subject to evolutionary processes.


Your entire argument is presuppositional. Drinking Beverage

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2013, 06:55 PM
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(18-04-2013 06:42 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-04-2013 06:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  The evidence is that evolutionary theory explains all the observations and makes testable predictions without including intellect.
You are claiming that it requires intellect, but you need to show how that is required. You have failed to do so.

Stop being intellectually dishonest by trying to shift the burden of proof.

I am not claiming that evolution requires intellect. You are making the same error as Phaedrus. You conflate a process with a system. I am claiming that evolutionary systems require intellect. My evidence is the fact that all evolutionary system in which the details of origination are know are the products of intellect. The burden of proof rests with you to show that the one evolutionary system in which the details of origination are not known is an outlier in that it was a special case and did not require an intellect.

You are making the extraordinary claim, while I am making the ordinary one. Now I know you don't see it that way because you have been brainwashed by your atheism but what is observable substantiates my position. Evolutionary systems seem to require intellect. I think I would need to go to my feet now to count how many times I have asked you to provide proof that evolutionary systems do not require intellect. Instead of providing that proof you dodge and weave like a creationist.


So you are actually talking about the origin of life, not about evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 01:56 AM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2013 02:08 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(18-04-2013 06:52 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(18-04-2013 05:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I consider the following premises:
1. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us required intellect
2. It is logically possible the evolutionary system which produced us did not require an intellect.

I reject premise 2 because the observable evidence suggest that all evolutionary systems require intellect. Now you can show that my conclusion is false by presenting an evolutionary system which did not require intellect. I keep asking you for this evidence in multiple threads but you are like a findamentalist whose argument is that I should believe you simply because you are telling the "truth". Present some evidence please.

The observable evidence does not suggest that. You presuppose that intellect was necessary for biological evolution.

We have two examples of evolutionary systems occurring without the need for intellect:

Biological evolution
Human memetics

Human ideas and culture undergo evolution, and there is no evidence of an intellect required to design the mechanism by which intellect involves. Get that? Intellect is itself subject to evolutionary processes.


Your entire argument is presuppositional. Drinking Beverage

Human memetrics wouldn't occur without human intellect. That is so obvious you should be embarrassed for presenting it as an example of an evolutionary system which does not require intellect either in its inception or in its operation.

A biological evolutionary system does not require an intellect in its operation as evidenced by our observations(neither does computer simulated evolution). However you are presupposing it doesn't require it in its inception. I on the other hand make no such presuppositions. I acknowledge that it is logically possible that the evolutionary system which resulted in us could have come into existence without the aid of any intellect. However given the observation that all evolutionary systems whose origins are known seem to require intellect to come into being, the logical possibility the system which produced us came into being sans an intellect is small.

Evolution is strong evidence of the presence intellect because evolutionary systems are so contrived they don't spontaneously occur in nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 09:09 AM
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(19-04-2013 01:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Evolution is strong evidence of the presence intellect because evolutionary systems are so contrived they don't spontaneously occur in nature.

That is your opinion for which you have no evidence.

You clearly lack the insight to understand the evolutionary algorithm.
Your ignorance and incredulity do not constitute evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(18-04-2013 05:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  ... Present some evidence please.

ummm... trees?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 12:39 PM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2013 12:43 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(19-04-2013 09:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 01:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Evolution is strong evidence of the presence intellect because evolutionary systems are so contrived they don't spontaneously occur in nature.

That is your opinion for which you have no evidence.

You clearly lack the insight to understand the evolutionary algorithm.
Your ignorance and incredulity do not constitute evidence.

You are the one stating opinions Chas, and I have been providing evidence, but you bury your head in the sand and ignore it.

I made an assertion based on observations of the physical world and probability. I observed that all evolutionary systems whose origins are known share a similar trait.....that is they all required intellect. Nobody has disputed this. I have asked you time and time and time and time and time and time again to dispute it. You refuse or more likely you just can't because it appears to be a fact.

I know that the more I observe something with a certain property and never observe something without that property, the more likely it becomes that all of that something has that property. The classic example of what I am talking about is the more white swans you observe without ever observing a non white one, the more likely it becomes that all swans are white. Ironically it was eventually shown that black swans exists, which doesn't invalidate the thinking but just proves outliers do occur. I even provided an exact mathematical proof of this thinking in the probability thread.

I have made a case based on observation and sound thinking. I'm not even claiming to have proven the existence of an intellect but rather just making a case that we have reason to believe the existence of an intellect is likely. Your claim that I have not provided evidence for my case smacks of a creationist claiming there is no evidence for macro-evolution just because its never been demonstrated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: Another way to look at evolution
(19-04-2013 12:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 09:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is your opinion for which you have no evidence.

You clearly lack the insight to understand the evolutionary algorithm.
Your ignorance and incredulity do not constitute evidence.

You are the one stating opinions Chas, and I have been providing evidence, but you bury your head in the sand and ignore it.

I made an assertion based on observations of the physical world and probability. I observed that all evolutionary systems whose origins are known share a similar trait.....that is they all required intellect. Nobody has disputed this. I have asked you time and time and time and time and time and time again to dispute it. You refuse or more likely you just can't because it appears to be a fact.

No, you are stating a simplistic tautology. Your statement is that all invented systems are invented. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

Quote:I know that the more I observe something with a certain property and never observe something without that property, the more likely it becomes that all of that something has that property. The classic example of what I am talking about is the more white swans you observe without ever observing a non white one, the more likely it becomes that all swans are white. Ironically it was eventually shown that black swans exists, which doesn't invalidate the thinking but just proves outliers do occur. I even provided an exact mathematical proof of this thinking in the probability thread.

I have made a case based on observation and sound thinking. I'm not even claiming to have proven the existence of an intellect but rather just making a case that we have reason to believe the existence of an intellect is likely. Your claim that I have not provided evidence for my case smacks of a creationist claiming there is no evidence for macro-evolution just because its never been demonstrated.

No, your thinking is not sound. Your understanding of probability is not applicable - see 'tautology' above.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: