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, 08:46 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 08:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.
Straw man....I never said anything about insect, birds, and bats. You are bringing this up as if it was a claim I made so you could easily refute it. My example of convergent evolution was very specific please address that one in your argument.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 149
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 08:48 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Heywood, here's a tip. I'm sure you're a nice guy and we could have some very interesting discussions with you. But with your current posting style, that is not going to happen.


Here's some things you should work on:

1. Read other peoples' posts thoroughly
2. Do not tell someone that they believe X, based on your own guess or inference. Ask what they believe, don't tell them what you think they believe
3. When making a thread, inflammatory titles like this one will NOT win you friends
4. Don't play games when making a new topic. State clearly what you're trying to demonstrate and lay out your evidence clearly and concisely. Don't be "cute" about it


Follow those and you'll be less likely to be accused of trolling. If you continue with bullshit like this, you will likely lose credibility on this forum very rapidly. I suggest you stop this thread, and make a new one following my advice.

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
[+] 6 users Like Phaedrus's post
28-02-2013, 08:48 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 08:42 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

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.
No, I am saying that the environment is the selection pressure. The results are not random, they are the result of the selection pressure of the environment. The use of the word 'guided' is misleading.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-02-2013, 08:54 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 09:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
It is not ""guided" by anything. The selection pressure PRODUCES results whch are SUITED to an environment. One is passive, one is active. You are imposing an "anthropomorphic" view, ("guided"), onto a blind process. You would have to assert that the environment was a "set up" in order for you to make your assertion. There is no evidence environments are "set up" to produce a selective result. You have just pushed back ID one step, with NO evidence. Fail. Try harder.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-02-2013, 08:58 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 09:02 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 08:42 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

This guidance is akin to how humans are guided to become physicists. If you only look at a group of physicists, there appears to be a guiding force that caused them to become physicists. But when you look at the whole picture, you see no guidance, you see variation within the species.

There is variation in the population, some may or may not be advantageous. The more suited to the environment die off while the rest survive. Your looking at the species alive today and saying "look, they were guided to where they are today by the environment". Calling this process guided is entirely misleading.

And yes, I gave you a negative rep because your posting something as an argument without clearly understanding what it is your using as an argument. If you don't like it then give me a negative rep in return.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 08:59 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 08:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Straw man....I never said anything about insect, birds, and bats. You are bringing this up as if it was a claim I made so you could easily refute it. My example of convergent evolution was very specific please address that one in your argument.

False. The link YOU provided said EXACTLY that.
"The wing is a classic example of convergent evolution in action. Flying insects, birds, and bats have all evolved the capacity of flight independently. They have "converged" on this useful trait."
Then you said : "Convergent evolution is the tendecy of independently evolved organisms to sometimes take on the same biological traits and forms", and now you are lying, and trying to "weasle" out of what everyone can see you said.

Lots of weasles in this thread. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-02-2013, 09:07 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 08:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not ""guided" by anything. The selection pressure PRODUCES results whch are SUITED to an environment. One is passive, one is active. You are imposing an "anthropomorphic" view, ("guided"), onto a blind process. You would have to assert that the environment was a "set up" in order for you to make your assertion. There is no evidence environmernts are "set up" to produce a selective result. You have just pushed back ID one step, with NO evidence. Fail. Try harder.
There's a lot of contradiction in your post. You say its not guided by anything but produces suited results. A "guide" is something which serves to direct or indicate. The selection pressure serves to direct evolution to produce organisms which are suited to the environment.
You who are anthropomorphizing becuase You are assuming "guide" necessitates an intellect. I haven't made that argument. I made the argument that if God does exist all He would have to do is manipulate/manufacture the selection pressure to achieve His desired results.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 149
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:12 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
I really had a lot to say in this thread but I am honestly so tired of trying to explain to people how and why they got it wrong. Mostly because the person I'm talking to has no true desire to understand the concepts. Attempting to find a flaw in an accepted theory is fine. I like that. Science likes it too. But when they don't understand the theory in the first place, it's just frustrating.

Imagine if I constantly said hockey wasn't a sport because it didn't have a basketball.
So there I've proved hockey isn't a sport. I found the flaw.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
28-02-2013, 09:15 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
If you capitalize god, then you have an agenda. Tongue

Besides, "guide" indicates future, but there ain't no future. So there! Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
28-02-2013, 09:18 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 08:58 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  This guidance is akin to how humans are guided to become physicists. If you only look at a group of physicists, there appears to be a guiding force that caused them to become physicists. But when you look at the whole picture, you see no guidance, you see variation within the species.

There is variation in the population, some may or may not be advantageous. The more suited to the environment die off while the rest survive. Your looking at the species alive today and saying "look, they were guided to where they are today by the environment". Calling this process guided is entirely misleading.

And yes, I gave you a negative rep because your posting something as an argument without clearly understanding what it is your using as an argument. If you don't like it then give me a negative rep in return.

When you look at the whole picture, you see organisms which although evolving independently, evolve similar biological traits and forms when they are subject to the same selection pressures.

Also you gave me a negative rep for, and these are your words not mine, "Using an aspect of evolution to imply the existence of a god is silly". Your not a very open minded person if you are unwilling to even consider that an argument can be made that uses evolution to suggest the existence of a creator.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 149
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: