Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: Are the patterns seen in molecular phylogenies sufficient to show that biological evolution occurred?

For reference and easier Googling, the science of generating evolutionary trees is known as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics. Using DNA sequence data to generate the trees is molecular phylogeny.

The standard of evidence I'll be discussing is reasonable doubt. Even that's pretty broad, but if your argument hinges on "possible," you should be able to at least quantify that.

I've generated phylogenies using online tools previously and discussed them in this post. I tried to start a tutorial in this thread. If someone wants to discuss how to actually use the tools and data, feel free to ask questions in the tutorial thread and I'll pick it back up.

This debate question is a response to this comment.

[Mae von H]

. Congratulations, you asked a few scientists if they trust each other. Therefore all scientists distrust each other. Wow.

Thats not what I said. If you cannot refrain from misrepresenting what I said, discussion on this point is useless. Or alternatively, if your understanding of science is so weak that you think TENDENCIES or even POSSIBILITIES mean EVERYONE, then I definitely know more about science than you do. Shall I post links on the increasing cases of scientific fraud? Will that suffice as evidence? Dont you want to find out if theres an epidemic of scientific fraud? The head of Stanford had to step down because academic fraud was uncovered. Hes not the only one. Do you think its just me making this up rather than admit its true?

Do you acknowledge that the scientific method is the best method humans have at arriving at truths, or do you argue that there is a better method humans should be using in place of the scientific method?

When it comes to natural processes and understanding them, yes. Ive demonstrated I use this whereas you jumped to "if some, therefore all" which is anything but the scientific method. But science cannot answer all questions nor arrive at all truth.

I'm trying to figure out what you are complaining about and why.

Easy. I reported that theres a plague of dishonesty in science and you said I said all scientists are dishonest, which I never said. Stop doing that.

It's like acknowledging that the ThrustSSC is the fastest land vehicle, but it just isn't fast enough. Such a complaint would seem misplaced don't you think?

Huh? Theres no correlation in that example. No one is saying anything close to that. Besides, speed or faster is NOT a moral issue.

[Clownboat]

When it comes to natural processes and understanding them, yes.

So it is the best that we have and you're still complaining about it? This is odd to me. If you pointed to a better mechanism, which you cannot, at least then your complaints would seem valid.

Ive demonstrated I use this whereas you jumped to "if some, therefore all" which is anything but the scientific method.

I have done no such thing. The amount of 'wrong' in you is amazing.

But science cannot answer all questions nor arrive at all truth.

No one claimed that this method could do these things. You're complaining about the best we that have and now pointing out that the best we have cannot answer all questions.
The scientific method got us to the moon and you bring up how it cannot answer all truth. Your complaints are really strange and leave me scratching my head trying to figure out why you are whining about having the best mechanism available to you. Do you not hear yourself?

Easy. I reported that theres a plague of dishonesty in science and you said I said all scientists are dishonest, which I never said. Stop doing that.

You are either just fully mistaken or a liar. Which is it?

Huh? Theres no correlation in that example. No one is saying anything close to that. Besides, speed or faster is NOT a moral issue.

You're complaining about the best that we have. That's like whining that you have access to the fastest car, but it just isn't good enough for you. The scientific method is the fastest car, even you agree, yet your still complaining about it.

You trying to maintain your religious belief is what drives this as there as there is no logic in your complaints. Come up with a better method and THEN your complaints will not be misplaced. Complaining about the best we have in order to maintain a previously held belief is not a valid method for arriving at truths.

[Mae von H]

When it comes to natural processes and understanding them, yes.

So it is the best that we have and you're still complaining about it? This is odd to me. If you pointed to a better mechanism, which you cannot, at least then your complaints would seem valid.

Again, thats NOT what I said. Why do you guys have trouble repeating what I say? Science can ONLY help us understand the natural world. It cannot address the questions children ask that are NOT within the natural world.

Ive demonstrated I use this whereas you jumped to "if some, therefore all" which is anything but the scientific method.

I have done no such thing. The amount of 'wrong' in you is amazing. [/quote] Yes you did. You want the quote?

But science cannot answer all questions nor arrive at all truth.

No one claimed that this method could do these things. You're complaining about the best we that have and now pointing out that the best we have cannot answer all questions.

1. No where did I complain. Can you please try to refrain from these false accusations?
2. Do you at least acknowledge that science is not the best way to ascertain the answer to some questions?

The scientific method got us to the moon and you bring up how it cannot answer all truth. Your complaints are really strange and leave me scratching my head trying to figure out why you are whining about having the best mechanism available to you. Do you not hear yourself?

I repeat. I am not complaining but you are. You probably dont realize the only arrow in your quiver is the ad hominem. As society slips further away from God, the personal attacks get more common. Its a sign of a lack of intellectual wherewithal characteristic of children.

Easy. I reported that theres a plague of dishonesty in science and you said I said all scientists are dishonest, which I never said. Stop doing that.

You are either just fully mistaken or a liar. Which is it?

As I said, all you can do is throw mud.

Huh? Theres no correlation in that example. No one is saying anything close to that. Besides, speed or faster is NOT a moral issue.

You're complaining about the best that we have. That's like whining that you have access to the fastest car, but it just isn't good enough for you. The scientific method is the fastest car, even you agree, yet your still complaining about it.

You trying to maintain your religious belief is what drives this as there as there is no logic in your complaints. Come up with a better method and THEN your complaints will not be misplaced. Complaining about the best we have in order to maintain a previously held belief is not a valid method for arriving at truths.

The rest I didnt read because youve decided its easier to lob ad hominems than address the matter. You prefer "you are (insert in complimentary and untrue adjective.)"

Reminds me of "seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear".could add reading they do not read."
Moving on.

[Clownboat]

Science can ONLY help us understand the natural world.

You forgot the physical world. Other than those two worlds, what other world do you offer for our consideration and how do you know about this world?

It cannot address the questions children ask that are NOT within the natural world.

For those type of questions, humans invented god concepts. God concepts are the mechanism humans use to answer the childish questions you alluded to.

Ive demonstrated I use this whereas you jumped to "if some, therefore all" which is anything but the scientific method.

Yes you did. You want the quote?

Yes please and then a retraction once you are unable to provide this quote.

As society slips further away from God, the personal attacks get more common.

As long as we are no longer using god concepts to commit genocide and to steal virgin girls for example, society is better of without god concepts to justify such atrocities. A few personal attacks pale in comparison. Surely you agree?

Its a sign of a lack of intellectual wherewithal characteristic of children.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

As I said, all you can do is throw mud.

You failed to provide the quote where I did what you accused. The mud is in your face, where it belongs, but you can only blame yourself.

The rest I didnt read...

You would do well to run. If only your posts suggested that a god concept of sorts was helping you. Now that would at least be evidence of sorts. Sadly, you leveled false claims against me, offered slander and then ran away.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

Are the patterns seen in molecular phylogenies sufficient to show that biological evolution occurred?

The patterns seen in molecular phylogenies are a powerful and independent line of evidence for biological evolution, and they strongly support its occurrence. While they might not be sufficient in isolation to prove evolution to all skeptics, when combined with other evidence, they form an overwhelming case that biological evolution has occurred. This consilience of evidence makes evolution one of the most robustly supported theories in science.

However, the evidence overall does not discount intelligent designing involved. How something unfolds intelligently can be overlooked and denied as fervently as those who deny overall evolution in favour of instantly manifested design.
A merge of the 2 positions gives one the tools necessary for fuller explanation. Even so, (in my experience) there is much pruning of outdate concepts (esp re God/gods) to be done before clarity emerges.

The evidence which suggests evolution is based in intelligent design is not simply intuitive.

The evidence for intelligent design underlying evolution extends beyond intuition and into the realms of fine-tuning, emergent complexity, convergence, consciousness, and more. This perspective does not conflict with evolutionary science but instead complements it, offering a broader explanatory framework.

Such a synthesis invites us to view evolution as both a scientifically valid process and one that might reflect a deeper intelligence or purpose, challenging us to think beyond traditional dichotomies of "design versus chance." This integrative approach has the potential to enrich our understanding of life and the universe.

[Difflugia]

While they might not be sufficient in isolation to prove evolution to all skeptics, when combined with other evidence, they form an overwhelming case that biological evolution has occurred. This consilience of evidence makes evolution one of the most robustly supported theories in science.

Unless that's a statement about the skeptics rather than the state of the evidence, I'm going to have to disagree with you. If we had no other evidence at all, I contend that the phylogenetic data are sufficient to demonstrate evolution to the point of statistical certainty.

However, the evidence overall does not discount intelligent designing involved. How something unfolds intelligently can be overlooked and denied as fervently as those who deny overall evolution in favour of instantly manifested design.

The difference is that there's no evidence for intelligent designing being involved. The evidence overall doesn't discount the involvement of intelligence any more than it discounts the involvement of pixie dust or Frosty the Snowman's magic hat. There's no evidence that those things are involved, though. Possible and probable aren't the same thing.

A merge of the 2 positions gives one the tools necessary for fuller explanation.

This reminds me of a joke in an old Dave Barry column:

Dear Mister Language Person: I am curious about the expression, "Part of this complete breakfast." The way it comes up is, my 5-year-old will be watching TV cartoon shows in the morning, and they'll show a commercial for a children's compressed breakfast compound such as "Froot Loops" or "Lucky Charms, " and they always show it sitting on a table next to a some actual food such as eggs, and the announcer always says: "Part of this complete breakfast." Don't they really mean, "Adjacent to this complete breakfast, " or "On the same table as this complete breakfast"? And couldn't they make essentially the same claim if, instead of Froot Loops, they put a can of shaving cream there, or a dead bat?

A. Yes.

Intelligent design in any guise is adjacent to this complete breakfast.

The evidence for intelligent design underlying evolution extends beyond intuition and into the realms of fine-tuning, emergent complexity, convergence, consciousness, and more. This perspective does not conflict with evolutionary science but instead complements it, offering a broader explanatory framework.

You can say that, but without the evidence itself, all you've done is said it.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #36]

Unless that's a statement about the skeptics rather than the state of the evidence, I'm going to have to disagree with you. If we had no other evidence at all, I contend that the phylogenetic data are sufficient to demonstrate evolution to the point of statistical certainty.

If were being precise, the patterns of phylogenesis, while profoundly compelling, do not stand alone in proving evolution beyond doubt. To suggest otherwise is to oversimplify the interconnectedness of evidence in evolutionary science.

The difference is that there's no evidence for intelligent designing being involved. The evidence overall doesn't discount the involvement of intelligence any more than it discounts the involvement of pixie dust or Frosty the Snowman's magic hat. There's no evidence that those things are involved, though. Possible and probable aren't the same thing.

Defining intelligence solely through the lens of human sentient intelligence can be problematic when considering other forms of intelligent design or processes that were operating long before humans emerged. By doing so, we risk anthropocentrismlimiting our understanding of intelligence to traits familiar to humans while potentially overlooking other manifestations of intelligence in the natural world.

Intelligence predates humans and manifests in diverse forms, from the adaptive strategies of life to the self-organizing principles of nature. Redefining intelligence as the capacity to solve problems, optimize systems, or generate complexity without conscious intent allows us to appreciate the deep, intrinsic intelligence operating in the universe long before humanity's arrival.

This shift not only broadens our understanding of intelligent design but also challenges us to rethink humanitys place within a vast, intelligent cosmos.

The analogy of "pixie dust" or "Frosty the Snowman's magic hat" trivializes the idea of intelligence playing a role in evolution, by arguing that intelligence is akin to "magic." This framing can unintentionally suggest that intelligence itself is some unexplainable, mystical phenomenon, which would be inconsistent with emphasizing empirical evidence and rationality.

Intelligence is not magicalit is a natural, observable phenomenon that can emerge through complex systems, whether biological, computational, or ecological. A more productive discussion would involve clarifying how intelligence might fit within natural processes, avoiding analogies that equate intelligence with the fantastical.

This reminds me of a joke in an old Dave Barry column:
Dear Mister Language Person: I am curious about the expression, "Part of this complete breakfast." The way it comes up is, my 5-year-old will be watching TV cartoon shows in the morning, and they'll show a commercial for a children's compressed breakfast compound such as "Froot Loops" or "Lucky Charms, " and they always show it sitting on a table next to a some actual food such as eggs, and the announcer always says: "Part of this complete breakfast." Don't they really mean, "Adjacent to this complete breakfast, " or "On the same table as this complete breakfast"? And couldn't they make essentially the same claim if, instead of Froot Loops, they put a can of shaving cream there, or a dead bat?

A. Yes.

Intelligent design in any guise is adjacent to this complete breakfast.

Thats an amusing analogy, and I see what youre getting at. However, I think it might be a bit of a tangent to the core idea Im proposing, which is about how merging perspectiveslike evolution and intelligent designmight actually enrich our understanding rather than diminish it.

My point is not about adding arbitrary elements (like pixie dust or a dead bat) to the evolutionary process. Its about acknowledging that evolution is clearly supported by evidence, but that doesnt preclude the possibility of intelligence operating within or alongside it. The two ideas dont have to be mutually exclusivethey can be complementary.

By synthesizing these views, we get tools to explore deeper questions: why natural laws are so fine-tuned for life, why the universe allows for the emergence of complexity and intelligence, and whether evolution itself operates as an inherently intelligent process. This isnt about rejecting science or invoking magic; its about expanding the framework for inquiry.

Evolution undeniably explains much of lifes diversity, but certain aspectslike the fine-tuning of physical laws, the emergence of consciousness, or the algorithmic efficiency of evolutionary processeshint at an underlying intelligence. A broader view lets us explore these questions without discarding evolutions robust explanatory power.

I agree that we need evidence-based explanations, and evolution provides exactly that. What Im suggesting isnt replacing evolutionary theory with intelligent design but considering whether intelligence could operate as part of the evolutionary process. Its not an either/or questionits about integrating perspectives for a fuller understanding.

You can say that, but without the evidence itself, all you've done is said it.

Lets focus on the evidence Ive pointed to rather than dismissing the argument outright with analogies. Ive mentioned specific aspects of the process that exhibit signs of intelligencelets discuss those directly.

The evidence isnt externalits embedded within the process of evolution itself. Here are a few examples:

Fine-Tuning: The physical constants and conditions that allow life to exist at all are extraordinarily precise. This fine-tuning sets the stage for evolution and complexity.
Emergent Complexity: Evolution produces intricate, highly functional systems like molecular machines or ecosystems. These systems solve problems and adapt with incredible efficiency, suggesting an intrinsic intelligence to the process.
Convergence: The repeated evolution of similar solutions (like eyes or wings) across unrelated lineages hints at patterns and problem-solving capabilities in evolution that resemble intelligent behavior.
Consciousness: Evolution has led to the emergence of self-aware beings capable of reflection and abstract thoughtarguably the pinnacle of intelligent outcomes.

Comparing intelligence in evolution to pixie dust or magic hats doesnt engage with the examples Ive provided. Fine-tuning, emergent complexity, and convergence are well-documented phenomena that science actively studies. These arent speculative claimstheyre observable aspects of the natural world that suggest a deeper principle at work.

Im not suggesting we discard evolution or invoke untestable supernatural forces. Im proposing that the evolutionary process itself demonstrates characteristics of intelligenceproblem-solving, optimization, and the ability to generate complexitywhich can be explored scientifically and philosophically.

So, lets set aside inappropriate analogies and focus on the actual processes for discussion. What are your thoughts on the role of emergent complexity or convergence in evolution? How do you interpret the repeated, efficient solutions evolution seems to find without invoking intelligence?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #36]

Unless that's a statement about the skeptics rather than the state of the evidence, I'm going to have to disagree with you. If we had no other evidence at all, I contend that the phylogenetic data are sufficient to demonstrate evolution to the point of statistical certainty.

If were being precise, the patterns of phylogenesis, while profoundly compelling, do not stand alone in proving evolution beyond doubt. To suggest otherwise is to oversimplify the interconnectedness of evidence in evolutionary science.

The difference is that there's no evidence for intelligent designing being involved. The evidence overall doesn't discount the involvement of intelligence any more than it discounts the involvement of pixie dust or Frosty the Snowman's magic hat. There's no evidence that those things are involved, though. Possible and probable aren't the same thing.

Defining intelligence solely through the lens of human sentient intelligence can be problematic when considering other forms of intelligent design or processes that were operating long before humans emerged. By doing so, we risk anthropocentrismlimiting our understanding of intelligence to traits familiar to humans while potentially overlooking other manifestations of intelligence in the natural world.

Intelligence predates humans and manifests in diverse forms, from the adaptive strategies of life to the self-organizing principles of nature. Redefining intelligence as the capacity to solve problems, optimize systems, or generate complexity without conscious intent allows us to appreciate the deep, intrinsic intelligence operating in the universe long before humanity's arrival.

This shift not only broadens our understanding of intelligent design but also challenges us to rethink humanitys place within a vast, intelligent cosmos.

The analogy of "pixie dust" or "Frosty the Snowman's magic hat" trivializes the idea of intelligence playing a role in evolution, by arguing that intelligence is akin to "magic." This framing can unintentionally suggest that intelligence itself is some unexplainable, mystical phenomenon, which would be inconsistent with emphasizing empirical evidence and rationality.

Intelligence is not magicalit is a natural, observable phenomenon that can emerge through complex systems, whether biological, computational, or ecological. A more productive discussion would involve clarifying how intelligence might fit within natural processes, avoiding analogies that equate intelligence with the fantastical.

This reminds me of a joke in an old Dave Barry column:
Dear Mister Language Person: I am curious about the expression, "Part of this complete breakfast." The way it comes up is, my 5-year-old will be watching TV cartoon shows in the morning, and they'll show a commercial for a children's compressed breakfast compound such as "Froot Loops" or "Lucky Charms, " and they always show it sitting on a table next to a some actual food such as eggs, and the announcer always says: "Part of this complete breakfast." Don't they really mean, "Adjacent to this complete breakfast, " or "On the same table as this complete breakfast"? And couldn't they make essentially the same claim if, instead of Froot Loops, they put a can of shaving cream there, or a dead bat?

A. Yes.

Intelligent design in any guise is adjacent to this complete breakfast.

Thats an amusing analogy, and I see what youre getting at. However, I think it might be a bit of a tangent to the core idea Im proposing, which is about how merging perspectiveslike evolution and intelligent designmight actually enrich our understanding rather than diminish it.

My point is not about adding arbitrary elements (like pixie dust or a dead bat) to the evolutionary process. Its about acknowledging that evolution is clearly supported by evidence, but that doesnt preclude the possibility of intelligence operating within or alongside it. The two ideas dont have to be mutually exclusivethey can be complementary.

By synthesizing these views, we get tools to explore deeper questions: why natural laws are so fine-tuned for life, why the universe allows for the emergence of complexity and intelligence, and whether evolution itself operates as an inherently intelligent process. This isnt about rejecting science or invoking magic; its about expanding the framework for inquiry.

Evolution undeniably explains much of lifes diversity, but certain aspectslike the fine-tuning of physical laws, the emergence of consciousness, or the algorithmic efficiency of evolutionary processeshint at an underlying intelligence. A broader view lets us explore these questions without discarding evolutions robust explanatory power.

I agree that we need evidence-based explanations, and evolution provides exactly that. What Im suggesting isnt replacing evolutionary theory with intelligent design but considering whether intelligence could operate as part of the evolutionary process. Its not an either/or questionits about integrating perspectives for a fuller understanding.

You can say that, but without the evidence itself, all you've done is said it.

Lets focus on the evidence Ive pointed to rather than dismissing the argument outright with analogies. Ive mentioned specific aspects of the process that exhibit signs of intelligencelets discuss those directly.

The evidence isnt externalits embedded within the process of evolution itself. Here are a few examples:

Fine-Tuning: The physical constants and conditions that allow life to exist at all are extraordinarily precise. This fine-tuning sets the stage for evolution and complexity.
Emergent Complexity: Evolution produces intricate, highly functional systems like molecular machines or ecosystems. These systems solve problems and adapt with incredible efficiency, suggesting an intrinsic intelligence to the process.
Convergence: The repeated evolution of similar solutions (like eyes or wings) across unrelated lineages hints at patterns and problem-solving capabilities in evolution that resemble intelligent behavior.
Consciousness: Evolution has led to the emergence of self-aware beings capable of reflection and abstract thoughtarguably the pinnacle of intelligent outcomes.

Comparing intelligence in evolution to pixie dust or magic hats doesnt engage with the examples Ive provided. Fine-tuning, emergent complexity, and convergence are well-documented phenomena that science actively studies. These arent speculative claimstheyre observable aspects of the natural world that suggest a deeper principle at work.

Im not suggesting we discard evolution or invoke untestable supernatural forces. Im proposing that the evolutionary process itself demonstrates characteristics of intelligenceproblem-solving, optimization, and the ability to generate complexitywhich can be explored scientifically and philosophically.

So, lets set aside inappropriate analogies and focus on the actual processes for discussion. What are your thoughts on the role of emergent complexity or convergence in evolution? How do you interpret the repeated, efficient solutions evolution seems to find without invoking intelligence?

Ummm, I hope I'm wrong and apologize profusely if I am, but it seems Difflugia might be debating with AI generated content here....

No shade William, but the tone and content is smelling awfully AI like. Again, if I'm wrong, apologies. Carry on.

[Difflugia]

If were being precise, the patterns of phylogenesis, while profoundly compelling, do not stand alone in proving evolution beyond doubt. To suggest otherwise is to oversimplify the interconnectedness of evidence in evolutionary science.

I disagree. I meant what I said precisely. Many lines of data got us here, but now that we are, the molecular genomic data alone are sufficient to demonstrate that biological diversity is the result of descent with modification.

Defining intelligence solely through the lens of human sentient intelligence can be problematic when considering other forms of intelligent design or processes that were operating long before humans emerged. By doing so, we risk anthropocentrismlimiting our understanding of intelligence to traits familiar to humans while potentially overlooking other manifestations of intelligence in the natural world.

If you're going to posit that other forms of intelligent design or processes were operating before humans, you're going to have to define what that means. We have definitions of anthropomorphic intelligence that allow us to identify it. Saying that definition is inadequate for something is a fine starting point, but without replacing it, you haven't added any information. Without another defintion, you might as well replace it with "I don't know" and your statements are just deepities.

Intelligence predates humans and manifests in diverse forms, from the adaptive strategies of life to the self-organizing principles of nature. Redefining intelligence as the capacity to solve problems, optimize systems, or generate complexity without conscious intent allows us to appreciate the deep, intrinsic intelligence operating in the universe long before humanity's arrival.

Then define it if you want to, but I smell equivocation. If "intelligent design" just means "the way the universe works," you've just defined yourself into a tautology. In that regard, you have a lot in common with Christian apologists. You can call the result intelligent design all you want, but it will end up being something that the rest of us call neither intelligent nor design.

The analogy of "pixie dust" or "Frosty the Snowman's magic hat" trivializes the idea of intelligence playing a role in evolution, by arguing that intelligence is akin to "magic."

Then the analogy is exactly what I wanted to convey. Without a meaningful definition, positing a role for intelligence within evolution is trivial nonsense, no more meaningful than "it's magic" or "God did it."

This framing can unintentionally suggest that intelligence itself is some unexplainable, mystical phenomenon, which would be inconsistent with emphasizing empirical evidence and rationality.

Using an anthropomorphic frame of reference for intelligence gives us something empirical and rational to deal with. Trying to divorce intelligence from any currently known framework gives you something unexplainable and mystical. Pick a lane.

Intelligence is not magicalit is a natural, observable phenomenon that can emerge through complex systems, whether biological, computational, or ecological. A more productive discussion would involve clarifying how intelligence might fit within natural processes, avoiding analogies that equate intelligence with the fantastical.

This is your equivocation. Ask ChatGPT if one of you has inadvertently relied on an equivocation as part of your discussion.

Thats an amusing analogy, and I see what youre getting at. However, I think it might be a bit of a tangent to the core idea Im proposing, which is about how merging perspectiveslike evolution and intelligent designmight actually enrich our understanding rather than diminish it.

Like merging shaving cream or a dead bat with an otherwise nutritious breakfast. Or how merging evolution with pixie dust might actually enrich our understanding rather than diminish it.

You're just stringing words together. You need to define the relationships that you're trying to talk about. As it is, you're saying that intelligence and design mean something different than what the rest of us mean, but you don't know what that is.

My point is not about adding arbitrary elements (like pixie dust or a dead bat) to the evolutionary process. Its about acknowledging that evolution is clearly supported by evidence, but that doesnt preclude the possibility of intelligence operating within or alongside it. The two ideas dont have to be mutually exclusivethey can be complementary.

If your intelligence and design aren't arbitrary, then define them.

Comparing intelligence in evolution to pixie dust or magic hats doesnt engage with the examples Ive provided. Fine-tuning, emergent complexity, and convergence are well-documented phenomena that science actively studies. These arent speculative claimstheyre observable aspects of the natural world that suggest a deeper principle at work.

But those aren't called intelligence. You are changing what the words mean and imagining that it's profound, but only because the sentences you've constructed with the new definitions sound meaningful with the old ones. If I redefine "cosmic love" to include chicken bones and empty pizza boxes, then the dumpster out back is chock full of cosmic love.

So, lets set aside inappropriate analogies and focus on the actual processes for discussion. What are your thoughts on the role of emergent complexity or convergence in evolution? How do you interpret the repeated, efficient solutions evolution seems to find without invoking intelligence?

The inappropriate analogy is referring to arbitrary aspects of the natural world as intelligence. If you want to talk about emergent patterns in evolution, let's talk about those. Calling them something else just makes the conversation confusing and, to be honest, I think you've confused yourself by doing so.

See if you can construct something interesting without changing the definition of "intelligent." It might be unwieldy, like the discussions involving various forms and definitions of slavery. Like those discussions, we can adopt some definitions as a convention if we need to. Also like those discussions, however, if your argument relies on conflating multiple things that aren't normally included in the definition, your argument might be based entirely on a logical fallacy.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #39]

I want to clarify again that Im not redefining intelligence arbitrarily. When I refer to intelligence, I mean the capacity to solve problems, optimize systems, or generate complexity in ways that are adaptive and functional. This isnt about invoking supernatural consciousness or intentits about recognizing traits we associate with intelligence in natural systems like evolution and ecosystems. These phenomena are observable, testable, and well-documented.

I think its important to consider that many accepted definitions of intelligence are rooted in human-centric idealism. These definitions often reflect how humans perceive intelligence through our own lens of cognition, creativity, and intent. This focus might cause us to overlook clear evidence of intelligence in non-human contexts simply because it doesnt match the way humans exhibit or recognize it in themselves.

For example, we might dismiss the problem-solving capacity of evolution or the self-organizing resilience of ecosystems as non-intelligent because they dont involve conscious human thought. But these processes demonstrate characteristics we traditionally associate with intelligence: optimization, adaptation, and complexity.

Ignoring this could be a form of cognitive bias. By focusing solely on human-like cognition, we risk ignoring evidence of intelligent outcomes in processes like evolution and self-organization, which science actively studies.

Ive pointed to specific examplesfine-tuning, emergent complexity, convergence, and consciousnessthat exhibit traits we often associate with intelligence. These are not speculative claims but phenomena actively studied by science. If you disagree that these processes reflect problem-solving or optimization, Id love to hear how you interpret them.

My argument isnt that evolution requires intelligence in a mystical sense (consciousness remains enigmatic and not fully understooda phenomenon we continue to study and explore scientifically) but that it demonstrates characteristicslike iterative refinement and optimizationthat align with broader definitions of intelligence.


This perspective doesnt replace evolutionary science but offers a complementary way to explore its remarkable outcomes.

Lets move past the debate over definitions and focus on the actual processes. For instance, how do you interpret the repeated, efficient solutions seen in convergent evolution? Do you think theres a deeper principle behind these patterns, or are they entirely reducible to environmental pressures? Id like to understand your perspective on this.