Is there evidence of " Cleverness " in Nature and it's processes ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

 

 

THIS IS A RESCUED THREAD FROM ONE DISMANTLED DUE TO TOO MANY CONVERSATIONS

This is one of the conversations :- NOT a discussion of A Religion but Cleverness of a Project

 

"

I deliberately have not mentioned , that I am saying , a God, A creator omnipotent being . is responsible . Whether I think these things or not. I deliberately have not mentioned these , why ?

 

Because ,historically it seems that , it is like lifting a piece of galvanised iron sheet that has been left covering some waste land for some time. On first lifting , a myriad of ants and various creatures are exposed , who immediately flee for cover in every direction . Its as if their sensitivity to light and exposure is too great. within seconds , they have gone to ground.

 

So it seems , can be the response of many scientists, to the issue i raised.,

 

That of the origin of the universe in all its magnitude and magnificence came .

 

...from some form of cleverness or from absolutely Nothing

 

 

What I was saying was that .

 

I can think of a point that was an absolute Nothing and now there is the Grand Universe

 

[that I have mentioned several times. ]

 

I find it common sense that , some form of cleverness, in fact I would think a great deal of clever systems that must have been active to convert .. absolute Nothing to a Grand Universe .

And that must be beyond human endevour ( super Human).

 

Now Whatever this :-

 

. "some form of cleverness, in fact I would think a great deal of clever systems that must have been active to convert " is

is up for grabs.

 

[] Some form of Master race already existing 10, Trillion in Number , beavering away with mechanism which would make our scientific minds burn

 

[] Some form of Thing that self generated from out of Chaos, in logic, number, math.probability, selective feedback system , god like being .

 

[] To an omniscient , that you have spoken about.

 

[] Any and many more is up for grabs.. But Nothing ...then the whole shebang ..to me not common sense

 

 

.Mike.-

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, 9 February 2014 - 09:26 PM.

• 0

 

 

 

 

 

At least one of my predictions has come true !

I deliberately have not mentioned , that I am saying , a G.., A cr..... omni... b.... is responsible . Whether I think these things or not. I deliberately have not mentioned these , why ?

 

Because ,historically it seems that , it is like lifting a piece of galvanised iron sheet that has been left covering some waste land for some time. On first lifting , a myriad of ants and various creatures are exposed , who immediately flee for cover in every direction . Its as if their sensitivity to light and exposure is too great. within seconds , they have gone to ground.

 

So it seems , can be the response of many scientists, to the issue i raised.,

So, not even the mention of ............... ........... .............................

 

The galvanised sheet is lifted, the sun light shines in , the critters feel exposed , and run for cover in all sorts of directions.

 

to philosophy direction, to religion direction , to physics direction, with maths direction, Engineering direction.

 

and back under the galvanised sheet is nothing to be seen anymore [ back in speculations, just a discarded, iron sheet ]

 

I am not even sure where i ran to or can run to for cover ? All I said was " isn't Nature Wonderful and Transcendent ." or there abouts.

 

Help ! There is a witch hunt , going on here. I am being pursued by a mob of puritan scientists.

 

I am not sure if I am just a scientist or someone who thinks there is a pretty fancy clever transendent project going on out there in Nature.

I Think I am both.

 

mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, 11 February 2014 - 11:19 AM.

more

Rescued Posts

 

 

1. Go through a sample take of 100 different natural solutions in a single aspect and see what proportion of 100 are rubbish, unclever solutions .

or

2. Go through 100 of the same sample across 100 different aspects of nature. and see what proportion are unclever solutions. who knows there is plenty to go at.

 

eg go to 100 different entities in nature measure how efficient or inefficient they are with energy.. grass light, atoms , trees rats amoeba birds dinosaurs, rocks. air, water etc.

 

or take a tree and look at 100 aspects and look for good ergonomic process... leaf root, trunk, capillary, root hair, membrane, photosynthsis.

 

or star 100 different processes.

 

my hunch is that most would come out 85% good project style at least 15% unclever project style but you could disprove my hypothesis. . your objection.

 

mike

 

ps Maybe i should make such a project the remainder of my life's work . say the 92 elements 1 hydrogen is there evidence of 'clever project ' 2 helium is there evidence of clever project 3 etc ............92 uranium is there evidence of a clever project

 

or there are a high proportion that are rubbish poor project ......

 

my hunch is this would be 99 % clever project . but it is falsifiable because it is possible to prove certain elements as useless.poor project .or prove that although one part of a natural aspect is a good clever project but 99 are rubbish project solutions.

swansont

Shaken, not Stirred

• 
• Moderators
• 
• 24,950 posts

• LocationWashington DC region

Posted 10 February 2014 - 10:04 PM

 

That doesn't really define clever, nor tell anyone how to falsify the claim.

 

The human body, for example. isn't cleverly designed. We have the same basic "design" as quadrupeds, but we walk upright, so we have back problems and the organs in our midsection are poorly supported. Our food and air pathways share a common source, meaning we can easily choke to death. Fertilized eggs can implant in the fallopian tubes, leading to death of the mother. We don't synthesize our own vitamin C (non-primates generally do). Wisdom teeth. Our retina is built backwards, leaving us with a blind spot. Males have nipples, external gonads and their urethra runs through the prostate, which can swell up and cause a blockage.

 

Plants' photosynthesis throw away the most abundant part of the spectrum, between 500 - 600 nm that's why they look green. Not efficient.

 

A careful look shows co-opting of pre-existing features, rather than things that were designed. To which one might reply that to co-opt a feature like that is clever, which means it's impossible to falsify.

• 
• 
• 0

 

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

 

I am not a minimum-wage government shill

 

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea

 

 

 

• Quote
• MultiQuote
• Report

#42 Mike Smith Cosmos

Protist

• 
• Senior Members
• 984 posts
• 0 warning points

• LocationU.K. / ITALY

Posted 10 February 2014 - 10:41 PM

swansont, on 10 Feb 2014 - 10:04 PM, said:

That doesn't really define clever, nor tell anyone how to falsify the claim.

 

The human body, for example. isn't cleverly designed. We have the same basic "design" as quadrupeds, but we walk upright, so we have back problems and the organs in our midsection are poorly supported. Our food and air pathways share a common source, meaning we can easily choke to death. Fertilized eggs can implant in the fallopian tubes, leading to death of the mother. We don't synthesize our own vitamin C (non-primates generally do). Wisdom teeth. Our retina is built backwards, leaving us with a blind spot. Males have nipples, external gonads and their urethra runs through the prostate, which can swell up and cause a blockage.

 

Plants' photosynthesis throw away the most abundant part of the spectrum, between 500 - 600 nm that's why they look green. Not efficient.

 

A careful look shows co-opting of pre-existing features, rather than things that were designed. To which one might reply that to co-opt a feature like that is clever, which means it's impossible to falsify.

How do you sleep at night ?

 

... ...... ......... ........ ..... ........ ....... ......Do not mean it !

 

 

 

Yes but you are picking one that suits your argument.

 

A line drawn straight across the spectrum of the cosmos would be a better test. Test for cleverness of project. If natural selection is part of the feedback of the clever project. You are bound to get solutions that are not the best. But work well.may be the rise time is too quick and it overshoots , or too slow and misses the boat by taking too long. Feedback is a clever project if it is a good project.

 

Just to get a flavour , I like to imagine 100,000,000 crack engineers of the future say 100,000 years in the future sitting down to design a universe. What would they use to do it , how , with what mechanisms , with what materials ,what design tools . I am sure that would be a clever project, and it would be evident in the resulting universe.

 

When genetic algorithms were used to design bi stables they produced a better design than engineers. Had produced with spare components that nobody understands. , There is an amazing mechanism in the production of the elements 92 amongst the galaxies stars , clouds, supernova, neutron stars etc, planets asteroids, comets etc. some good project by any bodies standards ! Come on admit it , you are in awe.

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, 10 February 2014 - 11:05 PM.

 

 

A Reply by

 

Phi for All said :-

Surely " natural " invokes the past and current way people collectively refer to " Is not NATURE wonderful " in almost personalising NATURE as if it/she were a more than Plain Mechanical happening. Usually this refering to NATURE is only usually as a single aspect. say " plants and Animals " If we take it as a real Whole say Back to the beginning of time, to the future limits of time, from the smallest of particles to the biggest aspects of the universe plus all the processes that have and are at work to start, change, control by feedback, and steer the universe to achievement we can think of this EXPANDED NATURE as 'Clever project ' in the least. And evidence indeed for a Grandeous Something.

 

Even if the furthest we can go is call it NATURE . If we find Nature more than just a machine ,we might be tempted to go further in our description . Either way it is evidence of a Clever Project . Who's Project ?

Phi for All said : -

 

Perhaps it invokes these things for you, but I meant natural as opposed to supernatural. I wasn't talking about "nature", but rather what happens naturally in the physical universe, without the need for explanations which require some kind of supernatural guidance or force.

 

The great Douglas Adams told us we need to be on the watch out so we don't find ourselves like the puddle, who wakes up one morning and realizes his world fits him so staggeringly well it must have been designed especially to have him in it. It's a powerfully attractive idea but it really doesn't reflect reality. Natural explanations cover all the bases so far, and they can be trusted.

 

-------------- ------------------- -------------

 

MIKE SMITH Said 23 Feb 2014

 

The following :-

 

IMPORTANT Observation ,

 

Over the 20th centuary 1900 to today 2014 there has been a NATURAL SELECTION process going on before our very eyes. Yet this is not in the natural environment but within the structure of modern technology and Human CLEVER DESIGN .

 

That is the Natural Selection process that has been responsible for the change in design of the AUTOMOBILE from :

 

The model T Ford by Henry Ford to the latest multi purpose , multi fuel Audi .

 

The point being that no one would even suggest that the effort of inseption of the idea of a replacement to horse drawn coaches to Mechanical vehicles or the onging clever design modifications have been produced by countless draftsmen and engineers.

 

Yet the power that has driven the change over the last 115 years has been a NATURAL SELECTION process. The selectors being Us, the Customer, The Buyer of the Cars. If the model is no longer in favour , it is not bought, the old models die off.

 

A NATURAL SELECTIVE SYSTEM which is totally impregnated by EVIDENCE . " it is evidence of a Clever Project "

 

 

.....mike

 

Post Script

 

O.K I will think about the Definition of Cleverness

.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Define cleverness. That's still a gaping hole in your thesis, and until it's defined, you can't proceed with a conversation.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Define cleverness. That's still a gaping hole in your thesis, and until it's defined, you can't proceed with a conversation.

.

.

. Definition of :- A Clever Project , demonstrating , Cleverness.

 

Firstly from the shorter Oxford English Dictionary , which comes in two heavy volumes that I have just dragged upstairs to my study.

 

Clever : Also cliver, cleaver,related to cliver in the sense of 'nimble of claws 'sharp to seize, klever,sprightly, brisk smart ,suggests the word belongs to the area 1. Nimble handed,adroit,dexterous in the use of limbs, 2 possessing skill or talent, of things done with adroitness, and skill.ingeneous. 3 . Nimble. 4 clean limbed, well made. 5 Handy.

 

The old mare was as clever as a cat, 1888. , The girl was tight clever wench as any was Arbothnot ! Then come ,put the Hormuz about ,and let us be merry and clever.

 

Cleverness . :- the quality of being Clever.

 

Adroit :- seems to figure in this a droit right handed. Possessing address or readiness of resource either bodily or mental, dexterous , active clever.

 

The Collins English Dictionary Says :-

 

Clever. :- Displaying sharp intelligence or mental alertness, skilful with ones hands .

 

The Collins pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus says : -

 

Clever .:- Dictionary....... Intelligent,,able,,skilful, adroit, cleverly

Clever. :- Thesaurus........ Able, adroit, apt, astute, brainy, bright, canny,capable, cunning, deep, discerning, expert, gifted, ingenious, keen, knowing, quick, rational , sagacious, sensible, shrewd, skilful, smart, talented, witty.

( they seem quite useful )

 

Project :- proposal or plan , a detailed study of a particular subject, to make a prediction based on known data and observation, to cause to appear on a surface, to communicate , to jut out, to cause ones voice to be heard clearly at a distance,to transport into the imagination.

 

Project thesaurus :- .... Activity,assignment, enterprise, job, plan, programme, proposal, scheme, task undertaking, venture,wok design,, devise,draft, frame,outline, plan, propose,scheme, cast, fling, hurl, launch, propel, shoot,throw, bulge,, extend, jut, overhang. Protrude, stick out...

 

 

There is a start ! Perhaps that's filled the hole ,a bit !

 

Mike

Edited February 24, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[davidivad]

may i just say that, in life, the question is the answer.

seems almost quantum mechanical to me.

what could be more clever than that?

and what a better place to hide it?

Edited February 24, 2014 by davidivad

[swansont]

 

There is a start ! Perhaps that's filled the hole ,a bit !

 

 

The dictionary is not a technical resource, and this is a science site. What I meant was a scientific definition of cleverness. How does one measure the cleverness of a system?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The dictionary is not a technical resource, and this is a science site. What I meant was a scientific definition of cleverness. How does one measure the cleverness of a system?

What! You mean that one hour of uploading the dictionary definition of cleverness was all for nought !

 

Oh well ! C'est la vie !

 

Surely a system can be described scientifically and by some of the definitions I have quoted above . Perhaps not the wench and Arbothnot !

 

Perhaps , when a system shows some of the qualities of cleverness that would NOT otherwise been shown if it were trundling along without any cleverness to make it improve, keep safe, achieve better.

 

Eg . like negative feedback for instance ? Control !

 

I perhaps have to go away and do some more thinking!

 

I do hope you are not , spinning me round like a top. .

 

Mike

may i just say that, in life, the question is the answer.

seems almost quantum mechanical to me.

what could be more clever than that?

and what a better place to hide it?

I would like you to explain , quite what you mean !

 

And it will give me breathing space to think a bit . Thanks davide

 

Mike

Edited February 24, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Dekan]

Perhaps the Creator deliberately designed the Universe to demonstrate His cleverness.

 

He thought " I'll create a Universe so fiendishly hard to understand, that nobody else will be clever enough to make sense of it".

 

Then, to test the effectiveness of His egotistical plan, He made some intelligent beings (humans) and put them in the Universe, This was to see whether they were clever enough to suss it out. He was pretty confident they wouldn't. And for thousands of years His confidence seemed justified. He watched smugly as the humans did nothing more than run about, slowly inventing stone axes and bows and arrows.

 

But then, He got a shock. The puny humans unexpectedly started developing Science, This enabled them to start serious, fast, investigations into the nature of the Universe. Thus potentially threatening His supreme cleverness. To foil this threat, He made sure that whenever the humans seemed to be making progress towards a rational understanding of the Universe, they got obfuscated by some new complication.

 

And these complications are continuing to this day. So, if we find a Higg's boson, it's not the Higg's boson, No- it turns out be only a member of a possible whole extended family of them. Into which, He's no doubt cunningly slipped "up" ones, "down" ones, "top" and "bottom" ones, ""strange" and "charmed" ones. All in different "colors" and "flavors".of course. Not to mention their mirror-image super-symmetrical counterparts, which He's got craftily hidden up His sleeve, to be played when LHC-2 gets going..

 

In fact, doesn't particle physics most clearly reveal this - the scale, and desperation, of His grandiose will not to be outdone in cleverness by humans. No matter how many particles we cleverly discover, He'll always come up with some more to confound us.

 

So it will go on - He cannot allow humans to attain full comprehension of the Universe, because then He'd have to admit defeat, resign, and shamefacedly flee. And that's not an option - where would He run away to?

[imatfaal]

...

So it will go on - He cannot allow humans to attain full comprehension of the Universe, because then He'd have to admit defeat, resign, and shamefacedly flee. And that's not an option - where would He run away to?

Ah - but the other option open to the petulant child caught in the act is to take their ball away so that no one else can play with it. And that could turn out to be a problem.

[davidivad]

What! You mean that one hour of uploading the dictionary definition of cleverness was all for nought !

 

Oh well ! C'est la vie !

 

Surely a system can be described scientifically and by some of the definitions I have quoted above . Perhaps not the wench and Arbothnot !

 

Perhaps , when a system shows some of the qualities of cleverness that would NOT otherwise been shown if it were trundling along without any cleverness to make it improve, keep safe, achieve better.

 

Eg . like negative feedback for instance ? Control !

 

I perhaps have to go away and do some more thinking!

 

I do hope you are not , spinning me round like a top. .

 

Mike

I would like you to explain , quite what you mean !

 

And it will give me breathing space to think a bit . Thanks davide

 

Mike

 

i personally think that the human ability to ask a question is one of the greatest abilities we have as a species.

in a sense, one might suggest that it is mother nature's current answer to the universe in which we exist.

quite literally mother nature's answer is the question itself.

without it, would we have science or religion?

would we have anything more than stick and rocks?

[Dekan]

Ah - but the other option open to the petulant child caught in the act is to take their ball away so that no one else can play with it. And that could turn out to be a problem.

I see what you mean - if pressed too far, He might simply shut down the current Universe, then re-start with a mk.-2 version which omits the upstart Homo Sapiens. We're certainly causing Him trouble by building things like the LHC,. Just think how many new particles it's making Him think up! Wearying for Him. At least He saved some ieffort by intervening to get that big US 1990's SuperConducting SuperCollider stopped. That must have been a relief.

 

Even more of a relief for Him, if He's divinely encouraging the Green Movement, which seems strangely averse to modern Science. The Greens want to build scaled-up medieval windmills. The sight of these must be very reassuring to Him. Isn't the sight of a massive windfarm with hundreds of expensive turbines all motionless on a windless day, a demonstration of how dumb people can be?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

. My quest ,is to try to prove that the current systems at work in the universe have evidence within them, or of them that proves a ". Clever project " projects are present.

 

Mike

[pzkpfw]

The Universe has rules. Stuff interacts in certain ways. Anything that might appear to be "cleverness" is simply an emergent property of that. A snowflake may be amazing to look at up close, but it was no "clever project" from some artist, it is simply a result of the way ice forms (the "rules" that govern ice crystals).

 

e.g. Much like I.D. versus evolution - the simple rules of natural selection explain the life we see; we don't need to imagine an "intelligent designer".

 

If there were some "clever project", then the cleverest part of it is making itself undetectable by providing no evidence. So the hypothetical project is so irrelevant it equals non-existant.

[swansont]

The Universe has rules. Stuff interacts in certain ways. Anything that might appear to be "cleverness" is simply an emergent property of that. A snowflake may be amazing to look at up close, but it was no "clever project" from some artist, it is simply a result of the way ice forms (the "rules" that govern ice crystals).

 

e.g. Much like I.D. versus evolution - the simple rules of natural selection explain the life we see; we don't need to imagine an "intelligent designer".

 

If there were some "clever project", then the cleverest part of it is making itself undetectable by providing no evidence. So the hypothetical project is so irrelevant it equals non-existant.

 

Quite similar — you have the same basic issue of how you objectively measure how designed or clever something is.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Quite similar you have the same basic issue of how you objectively measure how designed or clever something is.

There is no real problem ! There is a perception problem or an interpretation problem . Because WE , look out on a universe and Subjectively WE ,say how WE feel and what interpretation WE make. But that is all WE can do! We don't have a measuring probe we can stick into something and read a dial saying ....either clever project yes /no .. The point is WE ARE THE PROBE !

 

But there should be no real issue with this , we do it all the time as we live move and exist.

 

For a moment .....let's imagine traveling in some space ship to Mars . Routing around the various valleys. We come to this cave. We go inside. And there confronting us is this pile of strange looking computer looking equipment . With dials , knobs and whistles.

However unlike anything we have seen before or know ever existed before. But was clearly some form of technology.

 

We would have no problem concluding it was not natural rock but left there by some form of intelligent life that had been and gone !

 

No question about it that you would defend down to the stump! Why ? Because you can relate to it . YOU! WE relate to it.

 

Now take the systems, artifacts , rocks ,elements, environmental cycles, bacteriological, viral , animal, chemical , atomic Systems , human beings .

 

WE SEE at every turn around us can we not say, As with the visit to Mars previously described !

 

"We would have no problem concluding it was not ORDINARY but left there by some form of intelligent life that had been and gone ! but this time the equipment is even more sophisticated and technically clever . And so sophisticated we can hardly recognise it as equipment at all. "

 

The problem lies in us as the PROBE trying to make a test!

 

I do believe there is a way round this! But we have to adjust the PROBE US .

 

We need to look at the environment as ENGINEERS

 

But with the eyes of. 27th. century engineers , not. 20th/ 21st century engineers , EXAMPLES CAN BE GIVEN !

 

THAT is how we make the " cleverness project ". Test . Screw the adjuster knobs and whistle adjusters on our PROBE namely US .

 

To 27th century engineer setting . Point it at the world. The alarm is going off inside the probe

 

zzzzzzzz CLEVERNESS PROJECT DETECTED zzzzzzzzz !

zzzzzzzz CLEVERNESS PROJECT DETECTED zzzzzzzzz !

zzzzzzzz CLEVERNESS PROJECT DETECTED zzzzzzzzz !

zzzzzzzz CLEVERNESS PROJECT DETECTED zzzzzzzzz !

 

. . ------ XXXXXXXXX. EXTREME. SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY PRESENT XXXXXXXX

 

Mike

Edited February 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[pzkpfw]

It seems to me you are looking for the "God of the gaps", but pointing out that the gaps may be too small to see so we need to look harder, or perhaps that the gaps are unrecognisable so we need to re-train our detectors.

 

Still seems to go nowhere. Something will either, to current knowledge, be of "natural" origin, or it won't. You will have trouble forcing current knowledge towards being able to detect something we don't about yet. e.g. Cosmic rays were detected by chance (more or less). Nobody said "I bet there are cosmic rays, so I'll imagine what they'd look like and build a detector for them".

 

Do you have an actual example of something that you think is from some "clever project"?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Do you have an actual example of something that you think is from some "clever project"?

.

.

.

YES !

 

It all started ,after my first memory of consciousness . You know that moment when you were a very small number of years old ( not sure whether it was three or four ) . I was standing up in Plymouth , Devon, England , in a pair of yellow short trousers with straps over my shoulders. I hated those trousers , they were yellow ( I ask you yellow , for a boy ) , anyway they were too tight. This was my first recollection of consciousness some 66 years ago. There has been a lot of ' water under the bridge ' since then . But most of it , has been a conscious example of looking out on a world of some form of " Clever Project ". I have mainly been in and around England and the Mediterranean Sea , my daughters around the world. Now I and my wife are back in Devon U.K

 

From that first moment of consciousness , to this present moment some 66 years later I became a .........thinker, physics investigator, engineer, teacher , analyst, investigator, observer, philosopher ,and now someone trying to come to conclusions about the whole darn thing . And from that first waking moment to now , I have one major conclusion . Everything from the minutest detail to the grandest cosmic structure tells me one thing. My conclusion is ...

 

I , WE , LIVE IN THE MIDST of a VERY ,VERY ,VERY, VERY, CLEVER PROJECT .

 

. ------------------ The whole darn thing is the " Clever Project. " .-----------------

 

Now ,what you do with that result ,is up to you. I have done my probe for 70 years ( first 4 gazing about ) . And the answer is ,as I have given it above . What I do with it , is keep on in the way I have done my entire life .

 

Keep on : -

.......thinking, physics investigator, engineer, teacher , analyst, investigator, observer, philosopher ,and now someone trying to come to conclusions about the whole darn thing ....

 

Mike Smith

 

Ps. Now I can point to specific aspects , or detailed systems , should I be asked. Which maybe was what the questioner wanted. I still am happy to do that. For example, the negative feed back system is a brilliant example . But the whole thing needed mentioning first.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

There is no real problem ! There is a perception problem or an interpretation problem . Because WE , look out on a universe and Subjectively WE ,say how WE feel and what interpretation WE make. But that is all WE can do! We don't have a measuring probe we can stick into something and read a dial saying ....either clever project yes /no .. The point is WE ARE THE PROBE !

And we are subjective. To be science, you need to have an objective analysis.

 

What you describe is almost EXACTLY what the intelligent design folks say about their unscientific stance.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And we are subjective. To be science, you need to have an objective analysis.What you describe is almost EXACTLY what the intelligent design folks say about their unscientific stance.

I understand the point you are making about ' objective ' . I think that is possible and will attempt some objective points. But at the final count . You or anyone needs to make a judgement . Am I going to believe this or not . Which is subjective.

 

However I will have a go at a couple of objective . Points . And see how we go !

 

Mike

[pzkpfw]

.

... Now ,what you do with that result ,is up to you. ....

 

That's not a result, it's an opinion.

[swansont]

I understand the point you are making about ' objective ' . I think that is possible

No, it's required. I can't stress that enough.

[Strange]

 

But Nothing ...then the whole shebang ..to me not common sense

 

 

Two problems with this.

 

1. There is no evidence that the universe came from nothing. (And therefore, as far as I am concerned, no reason to take such an assertion seriously.)

 

2. Common sense is a notoriously unreliable guide to anything. It is usually wrong. That is why the scientific method has developed.

 

This seems to be an argument from incredulity against a straw man. As such, rather pointless.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

OBJECTIVE PROOF of CLEVER PROJECT

 

.Negative Feedback Principle:-

 

Although I had previously built receiver and transmission equipment in my late teenage years , being a Royal Naval Reserve telegraph operator among other things . These were not with understanding.

 

My entry into Brunel University London Sponsored by EMI Electronics , undertaking Electronics and Electrical Engineering in the 1960's I plunged deep into the mathematical and Physics Theory and practical design of electronic circuits that incorporated

 

Negative Feedback. in Electronics

 

Slogging out the understanding of how Amplifying Transistors and at that time also Valves ( glass vacuum Tubes working using cathodes heated to emit electrons ) . To us as students it seemed criminal to take devices that had the ability to multiply up voltages or currents by factors of 20 times or 2000 times which amplifying transistors or valves could achieve. It seemed to our young minds , getting something for nothing. We were all interested by Amplifiers with Rock and Roll . More was Good. to us The theory however showed otherwise. By applying NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ( feeding back from the output to the input in a subtracting or negative way ) we would reduce the gain or amplification to say times 5 or times 0.5 ( which seemed a waste of gain ) However we were to learn that this added, CONTROL. PRECISION. STABILITY and few other advantages at the expense of the available ( say 20 times or 2000 times possible amplification ) .

Thus counter intuitively we were learning to swap quantity for quality . As youth . you want loads of sweets , loads of noise music etc.

But the Mature approach learned was one of Quality, Control, Stability by Negative Feedback.

 

Such a mechanism could be viewed as A Clever Project ( of Quality ) as opposed to a self orientated greed (for quantity.)

 

Now Looking at the Natural World

 

When we make a close examination of the mechanisms present in the Universe and The Earth Systems [ environment, sea air rock ] plants , animals . humans we see that negative feedback systems are endemic or present in every area . The natural selection process itself is a Negative feedback System in its own right. .

 

So the Natural Selection Process and the Universe with Galaxies, Stars , Planets, Animals . Plants humans and ecosystems must similarly add, CONTROL. PRECISION. STABILITY necessary for survival and a few other advantages at the expense of size and Quantity, and thus , in this case also become

be A Clever Project (of Quality.)

 

,,Surely this is OBJECTIVE Evidence by

the equivalence principle

 

mike

Edited February 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

It is objective evidence that negative (and positive) feedback occurs naturally. <yawn>

[EdEarl]

Everything in the Universe is part of Nature; thus, if you consider anything clever, it is natural.

[Strange]

Which makes your definition of "clever" fairly meaningless. Is water "clever" for running downhill?