Intelligent Design is a Natural Product of Darwinian Evolution

[Jonathan]

For higher forms of life able to act
on their own behalf, the following
is an undisputed scientific fact.

The highly unconstrained interaction
between countless autonomous agents
acting within their system specific
rules of operation, create the property
known as 'emergence'.

And emergence gives a system a form
of 'intelligence', as in able to settle
on the better solution. Such systems
are goal driven, or designed.

An intelligence and a designer that
comes from within, from the system itself.
Not from some wise old man out there waving
a magic wand, as only children in the
fantasies believe, or atheists.

And since emergent properties are generally
irreducible to the parts of a system
and like a tendency have no tangible
existence of their own, they take on
almost a supernatural quality where
objective methods can't quantify or
describe.



Emergence
From Wiki

Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels
and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon
of life as studied in biology is commonly perceived
as an emergent property of interacting molecules as
studied in chemistry, whose phenomena reflect interactions
among elementary particles, modeled in particle physics,
that at such higher mass—via substantial conglomeration—exhibit
motion as modeled in gravitational physics. Neurobiological
phenomena are often presumed to suffice as the underlying
basis of psychological phenomena, whereby economic
phenomena are in turn presumed to principally emerge."


Per his definition of emergence, Corning also addresses emergence
and evolution:

"[In] evolutionary processes, causation is iterative; effects
are also causes. And this is equally true of the synergistic
effects produced by emergent systems. In other words,
emergence itself... has been the underlying cause of
the evolution of emergent phenomena in biological evolution;
it is the synergies produced by organized systems that
are the key." (Corning 2002)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence



s

[raven1]

On Thu, 19 May 2016 20:50:38 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

This sounds like something a random Deepak Chopra quote generator
would come up with.

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

Den 20-05-2016 kl. 02:50 skrev Jonathan:
>
>
> For higher forms of life able to act
> on their own behalf, the following
> is an undisputed scientific fact.

What's "an undisputed scientific fact"?

Something from Jahnus dictionary?



--

Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
— Ashley Montagu

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 20, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote
(in article <nhndd3$ubd$3...@dont-email.me>):

> Den 20-05-2016 kl. 02:50 skrev Jonathan:
> >
> >
> > For higher forms of life able to act
> > on their own behalf, the following
> > is an undisputed scientific fact.
>
> What's "an undisputed scientific fact"?

an example of an undisputed scientific fact would be:

‘creationists go to unreasonable extremes in their never-ending quest to
try to find something, anything, no matter how ridiculous or remote, which
might possibly be wrong with science in general, biology especially, and the
theory of evolution in particular.'
>
>
> Something from Jahnus dictionary?

[David Canzi]

On 05/19/16 20:50, Jonathan wrote:
> The highly unconstrained interaction
> between countless autonomous agents
> acting within their system specific
> rules of operation, create the property
> known as 'emergence'.
>
> And emergence gives a system a form
> of 'intelligence', as in able to settle
> on the better solution. Such systems
> are goal driven, or designed.

Systems that have emergent properties produce
those emergent properties all by themselves.
Emergence is not a separate entity acting on
systems to cause them to produce emergent
properties any more than ambulation is a
separate entity acting on people to cause
them to walk.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go.

[Jonathan]

On 5/21/2016 11:14 AM, David Canzi wrote:


> On 05/19/16 20:50, Jonathan wrote:
>> The highly unconstrained interaction
>> between countless autonomous agents
>> acting within their system specific
>> rules of operation, create the property
>> known as 'emergence'.
>>
>> And emergence gives a system a form
>> of 'intelligence', as in able to settle
>> on the better solution. Such systems
>> are goal driven, or designed.

>
> Systems that have emergent properties produce
> those emergent properties all by themselves.

Of course, but like wisdom emergent properties
are difficult to 'stick with a fork' or quantify
in an objective way.

> Emergence is not a separate entity acting on
> systems

Sure they can be. Is the collective intelligence
of the Internet a separate entity from you?
And are you a part of the Internet right now?

Does it have an effect on you, acting to provide
better possible solutions or giving you spectacular
new capabilities not possible before?



>...to cause them to produce emergent

> properties any more than ambulation is a
> separate entity acting on people to cause
> them to walk.
>

The problem with emergence is that it's
highly dependent on the observer.

You have to try to visualize the relationship
between a part and the system in which it resides
wrt complex adaptive systems.

Let's say the relationship between a person
and society.

From an objective reductionist view you'd treat each
as a system, break each down to it's respective components
and detail away as always. Problem with that approach
is that each type of system requires it's own discipline.
The various disciplines can't talk shop with each other and
see what they all have in common.

But now let's just look at these two interacting
systems from the perspective of...each other.

From the perspective of society, the individual
person appears to act chaotically and unpredictably.
With free will, for instance.

From the perspective of the person, society appears
to be, like wisdom, having emergent and canalyzing
properties that act on the person from above.

From the perspective of the whole, the parts
are chaotic, from the perspective of the part
the whole is emergent.

Well, parts can be objectified, irreducible
emergent properties like wisdom cannot.

In short, parts and emergent wholes have
/two quite different sets of properties/ and
of course require just as different scientific
tools or methods. One objective, the other
rather subjective.

One science, the other 'more art than science'.

But here's the rub, a part is an emergent
system unto itself. So which is the part
to be treated objectively?

And which is the emergent whole to be treated
subjectively? The answer is ENTIRELY dependent
on the observer.

Is the person the part and emergent society the whole?
Or is a person the emergent whole and it's various
systems the parts.

Don't you see, everything in the universe is in fact
emergent. It only becomes a part when we say so
in order to simplify the quantification.

And from an emergent frame of reference, one
measures a system against it's own possible
range of behavior.

And that method is...universal!!!!

All disciplines can use the same scientific method
from an emergent perspective. Which means ALL
disciplines can talk shop with each other
and at last see what they all have in common.

Which is the mathematical relationship called
self-organized critcality.

So objective methods are essentially analogous
to taking a derivative, an instantaneous picture.
But reality is in fact continuous (emergent) change.

There is no such thing as an objective reality, that
is an illusion of our own making, due to our
instinctive (not rational) need for simplicity
and certainty, our fixation on quantifying
and being able to agree.


Accepting all things are emergent shows the true
simplicity and beauty of nature and reality.


And that simplicity is that once the Second Law
has done it's job very well, and created the
maximum level of complexity (randomness), that
becomes the ideal condition for the 'Fourth' law
of spontaneous cyclic order or self-organization.

The ultimate impetus for the creation of all things
whether physical, living or platonic is no more
mysterious than water flowing downhill.

And just as relentless.

The ground up approach, as in how things
are built, will never see that truth.


As Henri Poincare said so well...


Poincaré argues that what science can attain
is not the things themselves, as the naive
dogmatists think, but only the relations between
the things. Outside of these relations there
is no knowable reality.

Thus, he rejects metaphysical realism:

No, beyond doubt a reality completely independent
of the mind which conceives it, sees or feels it,
is an impossibility. A world as exterior as that,
even if it existed, would for us be forever
inaccessible.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/poincare/


He was quite right, it's the relationship
between part and whole that defines reality
not the parts, and not the wholes.


Jonathan


s

[Jonathan]

On 5/20/2016 11:37 AM, raven1 wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2016 20:50:38 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>


> This sounds like something a random Deepak Chopra quote generator
> would come up with.
>

Hmm, how should I respond to that statement?

The logical flaw in your response is easy
to see. If it were such hooey, or so wrong
it would be equally as easy to show where
I was in error?

In fact, there should be a direct proportionality
between the level of nonsense in my post
and the ease of which you should be able
to demonstrate it's folly for all to see.

Twice as idiotic a post, twice as easy
to point out the errors.

Since you equated my post to a random generator
that implies you believe the post to be as hooey
as possible. Complete nonsense.

That would mean a child of below average
intelligence should have no problem at all
pointing out the errors of my ways.

It should be trivial, not even requiring
a moment's thought for you to show me
where I was wrong.

But you didn't?

To quote Spock from Star Trek 2,


...."either they are unwilling to respond, or
unable to respond".


If you're unable, that means you're a true dullard
given the 'rating' you gave my post.

If you're unwilling, well, that's a bit like
flipping the middle finger out the car window
as you speed off in jr high school Trumpian fashion.

If that kind of immaturity is even possible.

So which is it?

You didn't understand a single word I said
so like a child frightened by a shiny light
you strike out in frustration with a
generic insult?

Or you're so lazy minded perhaps you would
benefit from visiting this site...

http://bit.ly/20kS5L2

Either way, so far I give your pearl of wisdom
this grade...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3CfD8TPac

[Jonathan]

On 5/20/2016 12:22 PM, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
> Den 20-05-2016 kl. 02:50 skrev Jonathan:
>>
>>
>> For higher forms of life able to act
>> on their own behalf, the following
>> is an undisputed scientific fact.
>
> What's "an undisputed scientific fact"?
>

That your parents were cousins.




> Something from Jahnus dictionary?
>
>
>

[Jonathan]

That's what science is supposed to do.




>>
>>
>> Something from Jahnus dictionary?
>
>
>

[jillery]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 20:44:42 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Science doesn't need to test for word games, non sequiturs, quote
mines, circular reasoning, and their variants. It's theoretically
possible there's an anti-science argument which doesn't fit one of
those categories, but I don't recall seeing one.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Jonathan]

Oh I see, anyone that questions your cherished belief
system is 'anti-science', or a heretic. Should they
be burned at the stake for uttering such blasphemy?
Or merely forced to utter ten Hail Darwin's every night?

Look out, your dogmatism is showing.

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Jonathan wrote:

>For higher forms of life able
>to act on their own behalf,
>the following is an
>undisputed scientific fact.

>The highly unconstrained
>interaction between
>countless autonomous
>agents acting within their
>system specific rules of
>operation, create the

>property known as emergence.

>And emergence gives a
>system a form of

>intelligence as in able to

>settle on the better solution.
>Such systems are goal
>driven, or designed.

Logically, such a system described here can choose suicide. That is contrary to a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. So why is that a "Natural Product of Darwinian Evolution"? This is the first problem.

>An intelligence and a
>designer that comes from
>within, from the system
>itself. Not from some wise
>old man out there waving a
>magic wand, as only children
>in the fantasies believe, or >atheists.

>And since emergent
>properties are generally
>irreducible to the parts of a >system and like a tendency
>have no tangible existence
>of their own, they take on
>almost a supernatural
>quality where objective
>methods can't quantify or
>describe.

The second problem is an existential one. Epigenic (a non tangible) existence is a word stipulation. I cannot agree with a progressive theme that creates new terms to counter historical ones just because it oversees all historical perspectives to the present. Phenomena (public things) is better evidence for existence than epi-phenomena (non-public stipulations) especially if a well established science developed from it.

SC RED

[Rolf]

"Jonathan" <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3_idnYy2x6vJ9tzK...@giganews.com...

I plainly see your dogmatism shining bright there.

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 04:20:19 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

It's no surprise that you think those categories qualify as questions,
as they are your stock-in-trade. Those are the kinds of questions
that give skepticism a bad reputation.

[Burkhard]

Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/21/2016 11:14 AM, David Canzi wrote:
>
>
>> On 05/19/16 20:50, Jonathan wrote:
>>> The highly unconstrained interaction
>>> between countless autonomous agents
>>> acting within their system specific
>>> rules of operation, create the property
>>> known as 'emergence'.
>>>
>>> And emergence gives a system a form
>>> of 'intelligence', as in able to settle
>>> on the better solution. Such systems
>>> are goal driven, or designed.
>
>>
>> Systems that have emergent properties produce
>> those emergent properties all by themselves.
>
>
>
> Of course, but like wisdom emergent properties
> are difficult to 'stick with a fork' or quantify
> in an objective way.

Heat is an emergent property. Quantifying it in an objective way has
been done for a couple of centuries.

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 21, Jonathan wrote
(in article<h9OdnS0JvtUWndzK...@giganews.com>):

Science doesn’t go to unreasonable extremes. That would be because science
uses logic, not illogic, and the point is to find out what happened and how.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Something from Jahnus dictionary?

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 22, Jonathan wrote
(in article<3_idnYy2x6vJ9tzK...@giganews.com>):

nope. Just those who are illogical and go to unreasonable extremes to try to

find something, anything, no matter how ridiculous or remote, which might
possibly be wrong with science in general, biology especially, and the theory
of evolution in particular.

> Should they
> be burned at the stake for uttering such blasphemy?

Nope. They merely should be pointed to and laughed at.

>
> Or merely forced to utter ten Hail Darwin's every night?

Science is not a religion.

>
>
> Look out, your dogmatism is showing.

Oh, my. The irony...

[Jonathan]

The distinct lack of a generalized theory of speciation
is hardly a minor little trinket. It's as 'minor' as
having a cosmology that doesn't have a generalized theory
for star formation.

>>
>> Look out, your dogmatism is showing.
>
> Oh, my. The irony...

You're the ones with the blind faith in
conventional evolutionary theory. Ignoring
gaping holes in the vain attempt to portray
the theory as complete, when it's only half
way there.

You've become the defender of dogma, and
the religious crowd the skeptics, the
irony is right back atcha.

[Burkhard]

Stars of different mass form in different ways, low-mass and high-mass
star formation are (hypothesized to) quite different in mechanism, and
of course, in the formation of every star, a range of different forces
contribute depending on the specific initial conditions.

By your idiosyncratic definition of "generalised", star formation too
isn't a generalised theory. In fact, no theory is "generalised" in the
sense you use the term, and a good thing too - it would make them so
abstract to be all but useless.

[Jonathan]

,

On 5/22/2016 4:49 AM, scienceci...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> For higher forms of life able
>> to act on their own behalf,
>> the following is an
>> undisputed scientific fact.
>
>> The highly unconstrained
>> interaction between
>> countless autonomous
>> agents acting within their
>> system specific rules of
>> operation, create the
>> property known as emergence.
>
>> And emergence gives a
>> system a form of
>> intelligence as in able to
>> settle on the better solution.
>> Such systems are goal
>> driven, or designed.


>
> Logically, such a system described here can choose suicide.
> That is contrary to a major tenet of Darwinian evolution.
> So why is that a "Natural Product of Darwinian Evolution"?
> This is the first problem.

For lower forms of life, picturing them as merely
'machines' passing on their genetic codes is fine.

But I'm talking about higher forms of life that
are aware and able to act on their own behalf, able
to set...goals.

For such higher forms of life free will isn't a contradiction
of Darwinian evolution only of objective reductionist
explanations.

Just because the parts don't have freedom to choose
doesn't mean the system cannot. Suicide would be just
another aspect of diversity. No more different or
disadvantageous as having a wide range of other
traits for selection to act upon.

And it is the ability to set goals that causes
higher forms of life to evolve so much faster
and to so much higher peaks. It's the difference
between a linear rate of change of simple life, and a
geometric rate of change for advanced life able
to ask questions or form solutions to improve
their lives.

>> An intelligence and a
>> designer that comes from
>> within, from the system
>> itself. Not from some wise
>> old man out there waving a
>> magic wand, as only children
>> in the fantasies believe, or >atheists.
>
>> And since emergent
>> properties are generally
>> irreducible to the parts of a >system and like a tendency
>> have no tangible existence
>> of their own, they take on
>> almost a supernatural
>> quality where objective
>> methods can't quantify or
>> describe.


>
> The second problem is an existential one.
> Epigenic (a non tangible) existence is a word stipulation.
> I cannot agree with a progressive theme that creates new terms
> to counter historical ones just because it oversees all historical
> perspectives to the present.

Emergence describes system properties that are not
a property of any of the parts of that system.
So by definition a new emergent property will always
require a new vocabulary not already established.

There will never be a history to use to describe
a new example of emergence. You have to make it up
as it happens.

> Phenomena (public things) is better
> evidence for existence than epi-phenomena (non-public stipulations)
> especially if a well established science developed from it.
>

I couldn't disagree more, if something has an effect
then it exists, even if the cause is entirely without
physical substance, a dream, or hope for instance.

Or more to the point a ...goal.

If I were to have an entirely impossible goal of say
flying to Mars next year, but it causes me to act, to
invest, change jobs or even toss myself into the
nearest river in frustration, then that goal exists and
needs to be accounted for when trying to predict the
future of the relevant system.

Even the impossible becomes a variable to our reality
and future. This is why I say a distinction needs to
be made between the evolution of simple life and
that of higher forms able to act on their own behalf.

The impossible, or merely subjective makes all the
difference in understanding...our evolution.

At our level effects drive causes on top of
cause and effect.





> SC RED
>

[Jonathan]

You need to go back to slapping the hands of jr high
students that didn't return their books on time.

It doesn't work on me.

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 12:10:43 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

It's no surprise that post such an inanereply.

>It doesn't work on me.

Neither does your brain.

[Jonathan]

On 5/22/2016 8:24 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>> On 5/21/2016 11:14 AM, David Canzi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 05/19/16 20:50, Jonathan wrote:
>>>> The highly unconstrained interaction
>>>> between countless autonomous agents
>>>> acting within their system specific
>>>> rules of operation, create the property
>>>> known as 'emergence'.
>>>>
>>>> And emergence gives a system a form
>>>> of 'intelligence', as in able to settle
>>>> on the better solution. Such systems
>>>> are goal driven, or designed.
>>
>>>
>>> Systems that have emergent properties produce
>>> those emergent properties all by themselves.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, but like wisdom emergent properties
>> are difficult to 'stick with a fork' or quantify
>> in an objective way.
>
> Heat is an emergent property. Quantifying it in an objective way has
> been done for a couple of centuries.
>

Heat is quantified indirectly, by the equivalent
amount of work that would produce the same change.

Or more to the point, an emergent property like heat
isn't measured directly, but by the...effects.
Which is my point about emergence, and the futility
of reductionism.


Heat
From Wiki

"All of these, the commonest cases, fit with a rule that
heating can be measured by changes of state of a body."



Heat isn't nearly as complex as a life form
able to act on it's own behalf. Would you
quantify emotions or fears as easily?

And yet looking at the history of trying to quantify
heat, it spans centuries and even today ends with
statements like these ....



"The conceptual purity of this definition, based on
the concept of energy transferred as work as an
ideal notion, relies on the idea that some
frictionless and otherwise non-dissipative processes
of energy transfer can be realized in physical actuality.
The second law of thermodynamics, on the other hand,
assures us that such processes are not found in nature."


OR...


"Although distinct physical laws may describe the behavior
of each of these methods, real systems often exhibit a
complicated combination which are often described by a
variety of mathematical methods."


Or...


"It has not been possible to define non-equilibrium entropy,
as a simple number for a whole system, in a clearly
satisfactory way."


Or...


"In fact, the actual physical existence of such adiabatic
processes is indeed mostly supposition, and those supposed
processes have in most cases not been actually verified
empirically to exist."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

[Burkhard]

So what? That's how we measure pretty much everything

> Which is my point about emergence, and the futility
> of reductionism.

The futility of reductionism in the case of heat gives you something as
neat as central heating.

Anyhow, the juxtaposition of reductionism and emergentism is misguided
form the word go, though admittedly you find it sometimes in the
not-so-good literature. Emergentist positions are ontologically
reductionist, they simply concede that while everything can be reduced
in principle to basic matter, we often lack the knowledge to describe in
detail how certain properties of conglomerates come into existence.
Which is why proper non-reductionists, e.g. dualists, accuse "emergence"
to be an empty concept that is used to plaster over the shortcomings of
reductionsim rather than adressing them.

>
>
> Heat
> From Wiki
>
> "All of these, the commonest cases, fit with a rule that
> heating can be measured by changes of state of a body."
>
>
>
> Heat isn't nearly as complex as a life form
> able to act on it's own behalf. Would you
> quantify emotions or fears as easily?

Really not relevant for your claim about the concept of emergence, which
as my example proves is plain wrong.

As for quantifying emotions, we do this with varying success all the
time. If you suffer an accident e.g. and sue the person responsible,
chances are that you'll have to undergo a standardized test to establish
your pain level. Far form perfect, but good enough to work for the
intended purpose.

>
> And yet looking at the history of trying to quantify
> heat, it spans centuries and even today ends with
> statements like these ....
>
>
>
> "The conceptual purity of this definition, based on
> the concept of energy transferred as work as an
> ideal notion, relies on the idea that some
> frictionless and otherwise non-dissipative processes
> of energy transfer can be realized in physical actuality.
> The second law of thermodynamics, on the other hand,
> assures us that such processes are not found in nature."
>
>

so? The more general a theory, the more idealisation it will use. You
should be all in favour of this

> OR...
>
>
> "Although distinct physical laws may describe the behavior
> of each of these methods, real systems often exhibit a
> complicated combination which are often described by a
> variety of mathematical methods."
>
>
> Or...
>
>
> "It has not been possible to define non-equilibrium entropy,
> as a simple number for a whole system, in a clearly
> satisfactory way."
>
>
> Or...
>
>
> "In fact, the actual physical existence of such adiabatic
> processes is indeed mostly supposition, and those supposed
> processes have in most cases not been actually verified
> empirically to exist."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

and I'm sure you think that these quotes somehow make a point

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 22, Jonathan wrote

(in article<PKKdnTjV2cZXTNzK...@giganews.com>):

the fact that you have a problem with it does not mean that it doesn’t
exist. I’ve shown you the way, twice. Your willful blindness (see further
‘goes to ridiculous extremes’, above) is not anyone else’d problem.

>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Look out, your dogmatism is showing.
> >
> > Oh, my. The irony...
>
>
> You're the ones with the blind faith in
> conventional evolutionary theory. Ignoring
> gaping holes in the vain attempt to portray
> the theory as complete, when it's only half
> way there.

as the problem you imagine doesn’t exist, it’s easy to ignore it.

>
>
> You've become the defender of dogma, and
> the religious crowd the skeptics, the
> irony is right back atcha.

‘ridiculous extremes’, son, ridiculous extremes.

[jonathan]

Ouch~


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FNhx5l4uA

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 20:44:42 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<writeI...@gmail.com>:

And science (actually, scientists) do so, especially since
finding errors in existing theories is a sure path to fame,
if not fortune. But at some point, as when the evidence is
as overwhelming as it is for evolution, it becomes a process
of details and refinements. If creationists understood the
evidence and how science actually works, and were honest,
they'd have to stop the incessant attacks and learn to deal
with reality. But we know how likely that is, don't we?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Jonathan wrote:
On 5/22/2016 4:49 AM, scienceci...@gmail.comwrote:

>>Logially, such a system

>>described here can choose
>>suicide. That is contrary to
>>a major tenet of Darwinian >>evolution. So why is that a
>>"Natural Product of
>>Darwinian Evolution"?
>>This is the first problem.

>For lower forms of life,
>picturing them as merely
>"machines" passing on their
>genetic codes is fine.

>But Im talking about higher

>forms of life that are
>aware and able to act on
>their own behalf, able
>to set...goals.

>For such higher forms of life

>free will isn't a contradiction <br>

>of Darwinian evolution only
>of objective reductionist
>explanations.

>Just because the parts don't
>have freedom to choose
>doesn't mean the system
>cannot. Suicide would be
>just another aspect of
>diversity. No more different
>or disadvantageous as
>having a wide range of other
>traits for selection to act
>upon.

But that does not logically connect to Darwin's broad tenet of natural selection other than making it a trait too. The contradiction (in the title) is categorial. How is design for both survival and non-survival Darwinian theory? Either some humans only have emergence; which makes it a trait, not a categorial; or some natural designs have flaws and these are ousted by Darwinian selection (the suicides). Darwian evolution, not ID, connects to a wider base in nature. Both high and low life forms are covered by selection. You admit there is no natural design (ID) category that goes to the lower forms. That shortens the reach of ID theory as nothing more than trait.

Futhermore, the term "intellegent-design" is superfluous. There is a trait that is already sufficent to explain this. It is simply the word
'intelligence' alone.

>new example of
>emergence. You have to
make it up as it happens.

There is a science of natural history
that has made the word 'trait' mean this and it is logically sound as I have shown above.

>>Phenomena (public things)
>>is better evidence for
>>existence than

>>epiphenomena (non-public >>stipulations) especially if a

>>well established science
>>developed from it.

>I couldn't disagree more, if >something has an effect
>then it exists, even if the
>cause is entirely without
>physical substance, a
>dream, or hope for instance.

That is subjective philosophy--the philosophy of 'intention'. This is about the existentialism in the philosophy of natural science.

>snip..

SC RED

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 13:35:07 -0400, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>
wrote:

>On 5/22/2016 12:25 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 12:10:43 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> You need to go back to slapping the hands of jr high
>>> students that didn't return their books on time.
>>
>>

>> It's no surprise that you posted such an inane reply.

>>
>>
>>> It doesn't work on me.
>>
>>
>> Neither does your brain.
>
>
>
>
>Ouch~
>
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FNhx5l4uA

Back atcha:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNbmxGp1Opk>

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 22, jonathan wrote
(in article<O-OdnX6hQpVXcNzK...@giganews.com>):

[deleted]

Jon, m’man, why did you change your tag from writei...@gmail.com to
wr...@instead.com? Attempting to wiggle out of filters, are you, you naughty
boy? Peter the Prince of Darkness will have words with you, he will.
Assuming, that is, that he returns from the slime pit he retreated to.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 10:03:49 -0400, Wolffan <AKWo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I have been told by several self-appointed authorities on the matter
that nobody, including the Prince of Darkness, gives a hoot about
posters to T.O. changing their emails addresses.

[Ernest Major]

On 22/05/2016 16:37, Jonathan wrote:
>
> The distinct lack of a generalized theory of speciation
> is hardly a minor little trinket. It's as 'minor' as
> having a cosmology that doesn't have a generalized theory
> for star formation.
>

When are you going to give up the reductionist idea that there's a
single explanation for speciation?

--
alias Ernest Major

[David Canzi]

On 05/21/16 20:18, Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/21/2016 11:14 AM, David Canzi wrote:
>
>
>> On 05/19/16 20:50, Jonathan wrote:
>>> The highly unconstrained interaction
>>> between countless autonomous agents
>>> acting within their system specific
>>> rules of operation, create the property
>>> known as 'emergence'.
>>>
>>> And emergence gives a system a form
>>> of 'intelligence', as in able to settle
>>> on the better solution. Such systems
>>> are goal driven, or designed.
>
>> Systems that have emergent properties produce
>> those emergent properties all by themselves.
>
> Of course, but like wisdom emergent properties
> are difficult to 'stick with a fork' or quantify
> in an objective way.

Pressure and temperature are emergent properties.

>> Emergence is not a separate entity acting on
>> systems
>
> Sure they can be. Is the collective intelligence
> of the Internet a separate entity from you?
> And are you a part of the Internet right now?

What is acting on me, via the internet, is other
people. The collective intelligence of the
internet is the product of people acting on each
other. No aethereal somethingelseness can be seen
intervening to modify any person's words, or modify
the effects of those words on any other person.

> Does it have an effect on you, acting to provide
> better possible solutions or giving you spectacular
> new capabilities not possible before?
>
>> ...to cause them to produce emergent
>> properties any more than ambulation is a
>> separate entity acting on people to cause
>> them to walk.
>
> The problem with emergence is that it's
> highly dependent on the observer.

The theory of relativity is based on the principle
of relativity, but describes an objective universe
in which all observers can agree on the facts. So
appealing to the principle of relativity doesn't
justify rejecting objectivity.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go.

[Jonathan]

It's not a reductionist idea, and because the
current state of speciation theory is rather
embarrassing, to put it bluntly. No one has
even agreed on how to define the word 'species' yet.
And the two or is it four(?) basic methods of
speciation are either anecdotal, only describing
certain instances of speciation, or highly contrived
explanations for other examples.

Which is why speciation theory is the hot topic
in evolutionary circles. To say it's a mostly
settled subject is just plain wrong.


Read this and tell me if you really think this
is a satisfactory explanation?
http://evol.bio.lmu.de/_teaching/evogen/Speciation1.pdf


Or this from Cornell, which clearly concludes
a generalized theory is lacking, but badly needed.

You would say this describes a mature theory???
You can't be serious?



© The American Genetic Association. 2014.
Speciation Continuum
Kerry L. Shaw and Sean P. Mullen

From the Department of Neurobiology and Behavior,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 (Shaw); and
the Department of Biology, Boston University,

Speciation, the process that has produced an elaborate
and seemingly endless diversity of species, is one of
the most fundamental subjects of study in evolutionary
biology. It is also one of the most vexing, in part
because speciation occurs on an evolutionary time
scale, thus presenting a multitude of temporal perspectives
from which to witness the process.


~skipped


From our perspective, this ongoing integration of
the Darwinian and Mayrian traditions holds great promise to
unite the field under a single conceptual framework, a necessary
integration if generalities about the speciation process
are to be discovered.
http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/PDF/J%20Hered-2014-Shaw-741-2.pdf



....."if generalities about the speciation process
are to be discovered."


When they do, then I'll shut up, they're not even
close yet. And until then Darwinian evolution is
a half theory, fine as far as it goes, but not
going nearly far enough.



Jonathan



s

[Jonathan]

Copy-Cat~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_MqiGb0Qzk

[Jonathan]

I didn't even notice, checking just now the second one
is from the computer in the living room, I usually
post from the computer in the dining room like now.
But sometimes from the computer in my bedroom I have
three and a laptop.

I'll check them all and put them to the first one, which
is what I usually use.

But I bet the number of posts using the second
one is just a handful.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:59:50 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Ok, you proved that you are the biggest loser. Feel better now?

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 23, jillery wrote
(in article<ehn6kbpk9rh0po5fc...@4ax.com>):

I know, I know, just yanking Jonnie’s chain.

[Jonathan]

How so? I was holding back so I wouldn't make
you feel too, ah...well, too oh - maybe I shouldn't
say it.

Nevermind~

[jonathan]

On 5/23/2016 4:30 PM, David Canzi wrote:
> On 05/21/16 20:18, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 5/21/2016 11:14 AM, David Canzi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 05/19/16 20:50, Jonathan wrote:
>>>> The highly unconstrained interaction
>>>> between countless autonomous agents
>>>> acting within their system specific
>>>> rules of operation, create the property
>>>> known as 'emergence'.
>>>>
>>>> And emergence gives a system a form
>>>> of 'intelligence', as in able to settle
>>>> on the better solution. Such systems
>>>> are goal driven, or designed.
>>
>>> Systems that have emergent properties produce
>>> those emergent properties all by themselves.
>>
>> Of course, but like wisdom emergent properties
>> are difficult to 'stick with a fork' or quantify
>> in an objective way.
>
> Pressure and temperature are emergent properties.
>

The first line or assumption in my post
is for life advanced enough to 'act on
it's own behalf'. How does the exceedingly
simple examples of temp and pressure
qualify for this discussion?

>>> Emergence is not a separate entity acting on
>>> systems
>>
>> Sure they can be. Is the collective intelligence
>> of the Internet a separate entity from you?
>> And are you a part of the Internet right now?
>
> What is acting on me, via the internet, is other
> people. The collective intelligence of the
> internet is the product of people acting on each
> other. No aethereal somethingelseness can be seen
> intervening to modify any person's words, or modify
> the effects of those words on any other person.
>

Then tell me how much wisdom, ideas or social
movements weigh? How big are they, and what
are their equations of state?

Quantify the effects of this conversation?

Then multiply the above by a few billion.

>> Does it have an effect on you, acting to provide
>> better possible solutions or giving you spectacular
>> new capabilities not possible before?
>>
>>> ...to cause them to produce emergent
>>> properties any more than ambulation is a
>>> separate entity acting on people to cause
>>> them to walk.
>>
>> The problem with emergence is that it's
>> highly dependent on the observer.
>
> The theory of relativity is based on the principle
> of relativity, but describes an objective universe
> in which all observers can agree on the facts. So
> appealing to the principle of relativity doesn't
> justify rejecting objectivity.
>

The theory of relativity accomplished that by
including the motion of the observer,by
reintroducing the observer into the
quantification.

Objective methods, above all else, strive to remove
the observer from the observed.

To see the simplicity of nature and be able to
quantify the soft sciences we must do the
same, make the observations dependent on
the observer.

The observer must first define which is to
be treated as a part, and which is to be treated
as a system. Since parts and systems have
different sets of behaviors.

Keeping in mind that in reality everything is
an emergent system.

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 20:22:30 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

Of course you were holding back, just like everyone else who abandons
logic and reason for personal attacks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 11:37:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So that's another issue settled...