What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2013, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 07:54 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
The answer is they both got it wrong.
Dawkins makes a rather large blunder in this clip of The Blind Watch Maker. The specific portion of the clip is the 4:40 mark to the 7:30 mark.





Dawkins error is in making the claim that evolution is blind and does not home in on specific targets like his computer program. Convergent Evolution is strong evidence that he is wrong. Convergent evolution is the tendecy of independently evolved organisms to sometimes take on the same biological traits and forms.

What animals two out of the following three animals are more closely related? The gray wolf, the tasmanian wolf, or the poodle? The answer is the gray wolf and the poodle. The gray wolf and the tasmanian wolf evolved independently from each other. Yet most of you reading this, would be unable to tell the difference between a gray wolf skull and a tasmanian wolf skull. Here's what they look like.

[Image: 353px-Beutelwolf_fg01.jpg]

Dawkin's got it wrong because evolution isn't blind. It is guided. It is guided by the fitness function or as I call it the fitness paradigm which determines which random mutations get passed on. The intelligent designers got it wrong by thinking God is manipulating genes mutations to cause the occurence of complexity that could not arise on its own. God doesn't have to do that because when you design the fitness paradigm, you design/determine the products of evolution.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 07:53 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 08:00 PM by Chas.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 07:49 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The answer is they both got it wrong.
Dawkins makes a rather large blunder in this clip of The Blind Watch Maker. The specific portion of the clip is the 4:40 mark to the 7:30 mark.





Dawkins error is in making the claim that evolution is blind and does not home in on specific targets like his computer program. Convergent Evolution is strong evidence that he is wrong. Convergent evolution is the tendecy of independently evolved organisms to sometimes take on the same biological traits and forms.

What animals two out of the following three animals are more closely related? The gray wolf, the tasmanian wolf, or the poodle? The answer is the gray wolf and the poodle. The gray wolf and the tasmanian wolf evolved independently from each other. Yet most of you reading this, would be unable to tell the difference between a gray wolf skull and a tasmanian wolf skull. Here's what they look like.

[Image: 353px-Beutelwolf_fg01.jpg]

Dawkin's got it wrong because evolution isn't blind. It is guided. It is guided by the fitness function or as I call it the fitness paradigm which determines which random mutations get passed on. The intelligent designers got it wrong by thinking God is manipulating genes mutations to cause the occurence of complexity that could not arise on its own. God doesn't have to do that because when you design the fitness paradigm, you design determine the products of evolution.


No, Dawkins is correct; evolution is entirely blind. You misunderstand what convergent evolution is.

There is no single 'fitness paradigm'; fitness is contingent on environment, the interactions of predator and prey, climate and terrain, parasites and diseases, and so on. That different organisms evolve similar solutions to similar problems is not remarkable considering that DNA and even whole genes are common across species.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 18 users Like Chas's post
28-02-2013, 07:58 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 07:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, Dawkins is correct; evolution is entirely blind. You misunderstand what convergent evolution is.

This is hardly a compelling counter argument. You should start by explaining how it is that I am misunderstanding what convergent evolution is.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 08:10 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 07:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  This is hardly a compelling counter argument. You should start by explaining how it is that I am misunderstanding what convergent evolution is.

They are under the same selection pressures because they live in similar environments. That's no different than a bat and bird coming upon similar solutions to the same problem. This doesn't mean anything was guided.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ghostexorcist's post
28-02-2013, 08:11 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 08:19 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 07:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  This is hardly a compelling counter argument. You should start by explaining how it is that I am misunderstanding what convergent evolution is.

A counter-argument is required when there is an argument that needs to be refuted, so first you must present a real argument before expecting a counter. You appear to misunderstand and/or twist homoplasy into something that refutes evolution proves god exists by implying evolution is guided.

There are distinctions between the similarities seen based on whether they are the result of common ancestry or convergent evolution.

Some species undergo divergent evolution while others undergo convergent evolution or parallel evolution. It has to go one way. The example you give is just one example of two species that have undergone many convergent evolutionary changes, which are likely the result of similar selection pressures between the two species.

(Edit)

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Adenosis's post
28-02-2013, 08:13 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Rather than demand that we educate you, why don't you educate yourself? Rather assume that you know better than everyone else based solely on skimming a Wikipedia article looking for quotes to mine, why don't you enroll in a community college and take a couple semesters of biology? Or else pay better attention in your highschool biology class, whichever.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Phaedrus's post
28-02-2013, 08:21 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 08:11 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  A counter-argument is required when there is an argument that needs to be refuted, so first you must present a real argument before expecting a counter. You appear to misunderstand and/or twist homoplasy into something that refutes evolution.

There are distinctions between the similarities seen based on whether they are the result of common ancestry or convergent evolution.

Some species undergo divergent evolution while others undergo convergent evolution or parallel evolution. It has to go one way. The example you give is just one example of two species that have undergone many convergent evolutionary changes, which are likely the result of similar selection pressures between the two species.

I am not trying to refute evolution. I am trying to refute the notion that evolution is "blind". You say it yourself that in the example I have given the two species look similiar because they faced similar selection pressure. Its that selection pressure which guides evolution.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 08:26 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 08:21 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I am not trying to refute evolution. I am trying to refute the notion that evolution is "blind". You say it yourself that in the example I have given the two species look similiar because they faced similar selection pressure. Its that selection pressure which guides evolution.

Yes, I edited my post. You are trying to imply evolution is guided, noted.

Mutations are random, which mutations are beneficial are dependant on several factors, some of which Chas has already pointed out.

(28-02-2013 07:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no single 'fitness paradigm'; fitness is contingent on environment, the interactions of predator and prey, climate and terrain, parasites and diseases, and so on. That different organisms evolve similar solutions to similar problems is not remarkable considering that DNA and even whole genes are common across species.

Natural selection causes the organisms most fit to survive in their environment, most adaptable to change in that environment, and most capable of reproducing in that environment to live and pass on genes while others perish. If you want to call this guidance be my guest, but that is not the same thing. Guidance is the illusion you perceive when ignoring that 99% of species that have ever lived are extinct.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
28-02-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Flight in insects, birds and bats are totally different. Saying they "converge" is nonsense. Moving through the air in totally different ways is not "covergence". It's the same as saying "locomotion" (on the ground, at all) of any and all organisms proves "convergence" on that trait. Nice try. Fail.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-02-2013, 08:42 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 08:54 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 08:26 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Yes, I edited my post. You are trying to imply evolution is guided, noted.

Mutations are random, which mutations are beneficial are dependant on several factors which Chas has already pointed out. Natural selection causes the organisms most fit to survive in their environment, most adaptable to change in that environment, and most capable of reproducing in that environment to live and pass on genes while others perish. If you want to call this guidance be my guest, but that is not the same thing. Guidance is the illusion you perceive when ignoring that 99% of species that have ever lived are extinct.

(28-02-2013 07:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no single 'fitness paradigm'; fitness is contingent on environment, the interactions of predator and prey, climate and terrain, parasites and diseases, and so on. That different organisms evolve similar solutions to similar problems is not remarkable considering that DNA and even whole genes are common across species.



Yes, evolution uses a random element but that does not mean its results are random. You've essentially already admitted it wasn't random happenstance that the tasmanian wolf and gray evolved the same form. You've stated why they evolved the same for because they faced similiar selection pressure. It was this selection pressure that determined their form and not the random mutations.

Chas makes the error by conflating the environment with evolution. Even if the nature of environment is randomly determined(blind), evolution is still guided by it. The point of this thread is make the case that if God is behind man's existence on earth, He doesn't need to guide mutations. All that needs to be manipulated or manufactured is the fitness paradigm.

You're negative rep on me was a cheap shot so early in the thread.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: