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
04-03-2013, 03:46 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 03:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am talking about 'methinks'. It is goal-directed. It is used to show the power of cumulative change as opposed to one-off change.
Watch the video again. He isn't talking about cumulative change but cumulative selection. If cumulative selection were blind, it would not be selection but rather just random change.

Cumulative change and cumulative selection are the same thing.

The 'cheat' in his example is that the selection is not blind, it is directed at the goal sentence.

The 'methinks' example is showing that when change is accumulated it happens rapidly. It defeats the odds against the sentence appearing spontaneously.

The context is the 'million monkeys typing' story.
He's pointing out that even with millions of monkeys typing, the odds of getting the 'methinks' sentence are still astronomical.
But if changes are allowed to accumulate, the sentence is produced rather quickly.

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
04-03-2013, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 04:00 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Cumulative change and cumulative selection are the same thing.

I disagree for the obvious reason that change != selection.....even if you put the word cumulative in front of it.

Quote:The 'cheat' in his example is that the selection is not blind, it is directed at the goal sentence.

Who is doing the directing? Not Dawkins, he pushed a button and the simulation ran on its own without any further direction from him. If the cumulative selection is directed(and it is) it is directed by the fitness paradigm. Cummulative selection is always directed by the fitness paradigm. The only sense in which it could be said cummulative selection is a "blind" process is if by "blind" you mean there was no intelligent agency involved in the establishment of the fitness paradigm itself.

Again I have no problem with the assumption that the fitness paradigm was not established by an intellectual agent. However if that is your assumption then you cannot use evolution as a means to conclude God does not exist. Doing so means your conclusion is contained in one of your assumptions....that is called begging the question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 03:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Cumulative change and cumulative selection are the same thing.

I disagree for the obvious reason that change != selection.....even if you put the word cumulative in front of it.
Then you are missing the point of the example. The changes that are retained (accumulated) are the ones that are selected.

Let's get back to the point of the 'methinks' example. I've explained what I think it means. Please explain what you think it means.

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
04-03-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 03:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 03:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I disagree for the obvious reason that change != selection.....even if you put the word cumulative in front of it.
Then you are missing the point of the example. The changes that are retained (accumulated) are the ones that are selected.

Let's get back to the point of the 'methinks' example. I've explained what I think it means. Please explain what you think it means.

I think the "methinks" example shows that the fitness paradigm directs what changes will be selected to be included in the next round of breeding.
Also, I put a significant edit in my last post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 04:16 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 04:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 03:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Then you are missing the point of the example. The changes that are retained (accumulated) are the ones that are selected.

Let's get back to the point of the 'methinks' example. I've explained what I think it means. Please explain what you think it means.

I think the "methinks" example shows that the fitness paradigm directs what changes will be selected to be included in the next round of breeding.
Also, I put a significant edit in my last post.
You are ignoring the fact that this is an artificial example that Dawkins says is directed, unlike evolution which is not. Yes, this illustration of cumulative change has what you term a fitness paradigm. That is the 'cheat'.

This is not an illustration of natural selection.,

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
04-03-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 03:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Cumulative change and cumulative selection are the same thing.

I disagree for the obvious reason that change != selection.....even if you put the word cumulative in front of it.

Quote:The 'cheat' in his example is that the selection is not blind, it is directed at the goal sentence.

Who is doing the directing? Not Dawkins, he pushed a button and the simulation ran on its own without any further direction from him. If the cumulative selection is directed(and it is) it is directed by the fitness paradigm. Cummulative selection is always directed by the fitness paradigm. The only sense in which it could be said cummulative selection is a "blind" process is if by "blind" you mean there was no intelligent agency involved in the establishment of the fitness paradigm itself.

Again I have no problem with the assumption that the fitness paradigm was not established by an intellectual agent. However if that is your assumption then you cannot use evolution as a means to conclude God does not exist. Doing so means your conclusion is contained in one of your assumptions....that is called begging the question.

Evolution does not prove that God does not exist, and I don't say it does, and Dawkins doesn't say it does.

What he says is that evolution demonstrates no need of a God for it to work. God is an unnecessary addition.
It's an algorithm that stands just fine on its own, thank you very much.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-03-2013, 04:33 PM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 02:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Even if Dawkins did not design the fitness paradigm, as long as a fitness paradigm exist, evolution will be guided by it. It will home in on the set of forms which best fulfill the constraints established by the fitness paradigm.

You still seem to be perceiving this as a perfect system. Evolution doesn't create the *best*. It creates anything that can survive. Look more closely at the anatomy of the forms around us today (ourselves included). Few if them can be described as the "best way to survive" the environment. They are simple a way to survive, as well as one that happened to.

Consider the giant panda. Is it optimal to have a diet of almost nothing but one type of plant? Today that species pays the price for such a diet.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 03:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I disagree for the obvious reason that change != selection.....even if you put the word cumulative in front of it.


Who is doing the directing? Not Dawkins, he pushed a button and the simulation ran on its own without any further direction from him. If the cumulative selection is directed(and it is) it is directed by the fitness paradigm. Cummulative selection is always directed by the fitness paradigm. The only sense in which it could be said cummulative selection is a "blind" process is if by "blind" you mean there was no intelligent agency involved in the establishment of the fitness paradigm itself.

Again I have no problem with the assumption that the fitness paradigm was not established by an intellectual agent. However if that is your assumption then you cannot use evolution as a means to conclude God does not exist. Doing so means your conclusion is contained in one of your assumptions....that is called begging the question.

Evolution does not prove that God does not exist, and I don't say it does, and Dawkins doesn't say it does.

What he says is that evolution demonstrates no need of a God for it to work. God is an unnecessary addition.
It's an algorithm that stands just fine on its own, thank you very much.
So he assumes that evolution is blind and therefore demonstrates no need of a God for it to work. Its still begging the question. The conclusion "no need of a God for it to work" is contained in the premise "Evolution is blind"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 04:45 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 04:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  Evolution does not prove that God does not exist, and I don't say it does, and Dawkins doesn't say it does.

What he says is that evolution demonstrates no need of a God for it to work. God is an unnecessary addition.
It's an algorithm that stands just fine on its own, thank you very much.
So he assumes that evolution is blind and therefore demonstrates no need of a God for it to work. Its still begging the question. The conclusion "no need of a God for it to work" is contained in the premise "Evolution is blind"
No, observing the way things work and understanding the underlying mechanisms leads to the conclusion that it is an algorithmic process of trial and error, and is therefore contingent. There is no evidence for direction or goal seeking in the process.

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
04-03-2013, 04:46 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 04:33 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  You still seem to be perceiving this as a perfect system. Evolution doesn't create the *best*. It creates anything that can survive. Look more closely at the anatomy of the forms around us today (ourselves included). Few if them can be described as the "best way to survive" the environment. They are simple a way to survive, as well as one that happened to.

Consider the giant panda. Is it optimal to have a diet of almost nothing but one type of plant? Today that species pays the price for such a diet.

A target is more than a bullseye. Evolution homes in on a set of fit forms....not necessary just one. And fit isn't necessary perfect. It could home in on a bullseye with a highly contrived fitness paradigm....like in the "methinks" example. But whether or not the fitness paradigm is contrived that doesn't change the fact the evolution is directed or guided by the fitness paradigm. Dawkins use of blind only makes sense if he is talking about blind meaning no intelligent agent contrived the fitness paradigm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: