Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

[Subduction Zone]

And you probably have no test to falsify intelligence in nature?

I am not the one making a claim that an intelligence was involved. My claim is that there is no reliable evidence for an intelligence so there is no rational reason to believe in one. I can show endless process after process that occurs without an intelligence. But since I am not denying an intelligence I do not have a burden of proof. I can show what steps do not require an intelligence. Do you understand the difference between saying "No one has presented any evidence so why believe?" and "There is no intelligence". If I claimed the latter the burden of proof would be upon me. And if someone showed evidence for an intelligence I would change my mind. All you have right now is hand waving and no evidence. That is not saying that evidence cannot exist, merely that you do not have any.

 

[osgart]

I am not the one making a claim that an intelligence was involved. My claim is that there is no reliable evidence for an intelligence so there is no rational reason to believe in one. I can show endless process after process that occurs without an intelligence. But since I am not denying an intelligence I do not have a burden of proof. I can show what steps do not require an intelligence. Do you understand the difference between saying "No one has presented any evidence so why believe?" and "There is no intelligence". If I claimed the latter the burden of proof would be upon me. And if someone showed evidence for an intelligence I would change my mind. All you have right now is hand waving and no evidence. That is not saying that evidence cannot exist, merely that you do not have any.

So you are saying that you do not know, and as of yet have no rational basis to believe in such a thing as intelligence in nature. You are not even claiming there is no intelligence. Therefore you don't have a burden of proof either way.

Have you not observed your own bodily presence? Isn't that test enough for anyone. At the very least the human body would compel me to seek out an intelligence in nature if I were in that field.

You simply reject my evidence! Because you are unable. Incredulity perhaps.

I really have no idea what would satisfy a naturalist on the matter. Probably nothing! I would probably have to discover a factory and an agent to convince a naturalist.

As for those endless processes without intelligence, that is an assumption you make.

Your claim is I don't know with a large dose of not likely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are saying that you do not know, and as of yet have no rational basis to believe in such a thing as intelligence in nature. You are not even claiming there is no intelligence. Therefore you don't have a burden of proof either way.

I don't like to break up posts excessively but in this case I will answer each section. This is correct. Since I am not saying that there is no intelligence I have no burden of proof. All I can do is to observe that no one has presented any evidence for one yet. But I can say that it does not appear that an intelligence is needed in any way.

Have you not observed your own bodily presence? Isn't that test enough for anyone. At the very least the human body would compel me to seek out an intelligence in nature if I were in that field.

Nope, what you are proposing is a I already stated an argument from ignorance. It amounts to "I don't know, therefore God". Unfortunately for that sort of argument we do learn more and more as time goes on and that version of "God" keeps getting smaller and smaller. That is the "God the gaps".

You simply reject my evidence! Because you are unable. Incredulity perhaps.

No, you do not know what is and what is not evidence. You have only presented an ad hoc argument that is not evidence. Evidence is well defined in the sciences and since we are discussing the sciences we should use the scientific definition of evidence.

I really have no idea what would satisfy a naturalist on the matter. Probably nothing! I would probably have to discover a factory and an agent to convince a naturalist.

Scientific evidence would satisfy me. It is not that hard to find scientific evidence for real phenomena.

As for those endless processes without intelligence, that is an assumption you make.

No, not at all. Are you trying to say that God stacks the molecules in the ice cubes of your freezer? Once again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. I am not saying that God does not exist, I am saying there is no reliable evidence for a God.

Your claim is I don't know with a large dose of not likely.

That is fairly accurate. But since I am not making a definitive claim I do not need to give evidence for that. I only need to show how God does not appear to be needed. Once again show me reliable evidence and I will change my mind. How is that unreasonable?

 

[osgart]

I don't like to break up posts excessively but in this case I will answer each section. This is correct. Since I am not saying that there is no intelligence I have no burden of proof. All I can do is to observe that no one has presented any evidence for one yet. But I can say that it does not appear that an intelligence is needed in any way.



Nope, what you are proposing is a I already stated an argument from ignorance. It amounts to "I don't know, therefore God". Unfortunately for that sort of argument we do learn more and more as time goes on and that version of "God" keeps getting smaller and smaller. That is the "God the gaps".



No, you do not know what is and what is not evidence. You have only presented an ad hoc argument that is not evidence. Evidence is well defined in the sciences and since we are discussing the sciences we should use the scientific definition of evidence.



Scientific evidence would satisfy me. It is not that hard to find scientific evidence for real phenomena.



No, not at all. Are you trying to say that God stacks the molecules in the ice cubes of your freezer? Once again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. I am not saying that God does not exist, I am saying there is no reliable evidence for a God.




That is fairly accurate. But since I am not making a definitive claim I do not need to give evidence for that. I only need to show how God does not appear to be needed. Once again show me reliable evidence and I will change my mind. How is that unreasonable?

I didn't even bring up God. God is not even a consideration for me. I really do not know how the intelligence in nature exists. My guess is that it's code that exists in nature that comes from an unknown source that simply exists.

What would be the Scientific evidence for the color red existing in nature? Do I even need to be scientific to produce evidence of red.

 

[Valjean]

Well I don't believe in God nor simulation theory. But I do infer that intelligence is responsible for intelligence, and to me no one has ever successfully refuted that. And it is far more plausible than that we occured mindlessly. I don't even question it anymore.

There is no reason to infer this. Intelligence is explicable by ordinary, known, observable biological processes. Not understanding these processes is not reason to posit an invisible designer manipulating things by magic. There's no evidence of it.

Novelty that functions efficiently is evidence enough for me. The body isn't a senseless instrument, it serves its purposes. Everything functions for a reason. It's far from perfect intelligence though.

Bodies that function inefficiently is evidence against intentional design, and inefficient bodies are what we have. Nature is not efficiently designed, it's a Rube Goldberg, and the functionality is explicable without a deus ex machina.
Yes, the body is functional, but this doesn't imply intentional design. The function is a product of natural selection.

What does "everything functions for a reason mean?" Things function, true, but why do you assume an intentional reason?

 

[osgart]

There is no reason to infer this. Intelligence is explicable by ordinary, known, observable biological processes. Not understanding these processes is not reason to posit an invisible designer manipulating things by magic. There's no evidence of it.
Bodies that function inefficiently is evidence against intentional design, and bodies are very inefficient, ie: poor 'design'. The functions of the body are explicable.
Yes, the body is functional, but this doesn't imply intentional design. The function is a product of natural selection.

What does "everything functions for a reason mean?" Things function, true, but why do you assume an intentional reason?

Your explicable is not my explicable on this matter. My convincement would be alien to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't even bring up God. God is not even a consideration for me. I really do not know how the intelligence in nature exists. My guess is that it's code that exists in nature that comes from an unknown source that simply exists.

What would be the Scientific evidence for the color red existing in nature? Do I even need to be scientific to produce evidence of red.

Let's not play games. When people talk about an "intelligence" we can all see that as code for "God".


And your question illustrates that you do not understand evidence. "Red" is simply what we call colors within a certain band of the spectrum. We can observe and measure light and the spectra that it has. There is no need to "produce evidence of red". Red is an observation not a theory or hypothesis.

Are you interested in learning what is and what is not evidence? It will make you a better debater.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your explicable is not my explicable on this matter. My convincement would be alien to you.

But you just have an ad hoc explanation. Those are worthless in the world of science and quite often wrong. Science is evidence based. Your beliefs are worse than wrong since scientists can learn from the mistakes that they make. Your concept falls into the category of "not even wrong".

 

[osgart]

Let's not play games. When people talk about an "intelligence" we can all see that as code for "God".


And your question illustrates that you do not understand evidence. "Red" is simply what we call colors within a certain band of the spectrum. We can observe and measure light and the spectra that it has. There is no need to "produce evidence of red". Red is an observation not a theory or hypothesis.

Are you interested in learning what is and what is not evidence? It will make you a better debater.

Yes that would be interesting. However I am out of time for this.

A reference would suffice.

 

[Valjean]

I disagree. They will have a bias to explain away the intelligence of an ingenious, intelligent instrument.

I am positive that they will try to explain away the simple evidence with an elaborate narrative. Using gradualism over extremely long periods of time to make it seem like nothing goal oriented happened.

No, their bias is a result of observable, testable evidence, and the instrument isn't so ingenious as you think.

The "simple evidence" is what led to the ToE. It's religion that's come up with an elaborate, illogical narrative to explain it away.
What is religion's evidence that something goal oriented has happened?

Evolution has the strong seem of a goal oriented process, and I see it just as that.
The simple fact is that the body is well organized for functioning in its environment. Memory is a tool, and everything the body does is a tool.

You're arguing from incredulity; incredulity apparently born of ignorance. It seems goal oriented, but it is not. If you understood the mechanisms you would not have to posit magic.
Moreover, goddidit still doesn't explain the mechanisms involved. It just posits an agent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that would be interesting. However I am out of time for this.

A reference would suffice.

Better to go over it in person. Another time then.

 

[Valjean]

You would have to show that the complexity in nature does not function, does not operate and can't achieve any goals.

No-one disputes functionality. Our dispute is over agency and mechanism.

If I am wrong you have won a lot of lotteries in a long succession of sequences without fail. And there would be no function, nor any efficiency nor sophistication.

Clearly you don't understand the mechanisms involved; you don't understand how failures are weeded out.

What alternative mechanism do you propose?

Mutations would only be senseless with no functional success rate. And successes would not be able to build off of prior successes.

I'm not following your point here. Clarify?

Mutation can be shown to be a successful adaptive mechanism in any high school bio lab, nor is mutation needed for natural selection. The primary source of diversity in complex organisms is simply the sexual shuffling of genes. Puppies in a litter are all different -- and that's not due to mutation.

The intelligence is experimental, and adaptive. There will be nothing ideal nor perfect about what it makes. So the fail rate at functionality would have to squarely land at 0 percent functionality.

Again, not following. Your point?

 

[Valjean]

Not the kind of function I am talking about. Specific, sophisticated, and efficient function is the kind I am talking about.

But biology is not efficient, it's just complex. The "sophisticated" function is explainable. You should have learned the explanation in high school.

How would you make a reasonable test to prove or falsify that a pencil came about naturally instead of intelligently?

There is no clear alternative mechanism to explain a pencil. You're proposing a watchmaker argument, plus, you're proposing no mechanism, just an agent.
Nature's complexity has a clear, observable, testable, predictive mechanism.

 

[WalterTrull]

OK OK, just can't help myself sometimes when there are 2 cents in my pocket.
Abiogenesis is silly. Our father is in heaven.

 

[Valjean]

I have no burden of proof. It's self evident. Nor do I desire someone's homework on the matter.

"It's self evident."
It's not. You did not arrive at this mathematically, by reason, or by analysis of facts. It seems self evident because it's part of your ROM, if not operating system; probably installed before you developed any firewalls or capacity for critical analysis.

You need to start fresh and look at the question rationally. You're proposing an extraordinary, entirely unnecessary "cause."
NB: "entirely unnecessary."

The ToE explains the mechanisms, you just don't don't understand them. There is no need to posit an extraordinary agent, nor does an agent explain the mechanism.

And you probably have no test to falsify intelligence in nature?

There is no burden to do so. Agency and intentionality are extraordinary claims; unnecessary claims, inasmuch as a natural, observable mechanism has already been demonstrated.

I could claim it was all done by faeries, but I would have the same burden of proof.
How is your "god" different from a claim of faeries?

 

[Valjean]

OK OK, just can't help myself sometimes when there are 2 cents in my pocket.
Abiogenesis is silly. Our father is in heaven.

So there is no mechanism, and life has always been here?

 

[Valjean]

Have you not observed your own bodily presence? Isn't that test enough for anyone. At the very least the human body would compel me to seek out an intelligence in nature if I were in that field.

My body is evidence of complexity and function.
The existence of my complex, functional body is not evidence of intentional design. There is a perfectly reasonable, natural explanation for it.

You simply reject my evidence! Because you are unable. Incredulity perhaps.

But you haven't presented any evidence! You said it was "self-evident."
Please present some evidence. "I don't understand the ToE" is not evidence.

I really have no idea what would satisfy a naturalist on the matter. Probably nothing! I would probably have to discover a factory and an agent to convince a naturalist.

Any evidence would suffice. You've presented none.
You posit an invisible, intentional, magical creator. Your only "evidence" for him is your lack of understanding of the mechanisms of evolution.
You claim we have no reasonable, alternative mechanism, therefore: God!
But we do have an alternative explanation.

As for those endless processes without intelligence, that is an assumption you make.

No, it's extensively evidenced. It's observable, reproducible and predictive.
How have you not seen it?

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't even bring up God. God is not even a consideration for me. I really do not know how the intelligence in nature exists. My guess is that it's code that exists in nature that comes from an unknown source that simply exists.

So, perhaps it is just the laws of nature? Like the fact that every pair of masses attract each other, or that both positive and negative charges exist and like charges repel while opposite charges attract? is that a 'built in' intelligence?

Intelligence typically means a separate consciousness that plans for things to happen. if that is NOT your definition, then it is a good thing to let people know that.

What would be the Scientific evidence for the color red existing in nature? Do I even need to be scientific to produce evidence of red.

Well, you have to define your terms, but we know red light exists in nature (since light of the appropriate wavelengths can be shown to exist). We know that there are objects that reflect 'visible' light primarily in the wavelengths associated with red light, and we say such objects are red.

 

[ecco]

Nor do I desire someone's homework on the matter.

Nor do you or would you accept the "homework" of thousands of scientists.
Not too long ago, you would have been arguing the earth could not possibly be a sphere.
Not too long ago, you would have been arguing the earth could not possibly be circling the sun.

Regarding the scientists, you would have said...

I am positive that they will try to explain away the simple evidence with an elaborate narrative.

 

[ecco]

I could claim it was all done by faeries, but I would have the same burden of proof.
How is your "god" different from a claim of faeries?

The concept that faeries created anything is obviously nonsense.

THE ONE TRUE GOD created everything Last Thursday.

I challenge anyone to provide the slightest shred of evidence showing I am wrong. Osgart, that includes you.