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, 04:53 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 04:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

What can survive and reproduce continues to survive and reproduce. It doesn't home in on anything. Do you also think a rock falling down a mountain homes in on it's next temporary location? or does it just follow the route determined by the natural forces acting on it?

Why do you keep throwing around the phrase fitness paradigm when it doesn't make sense?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 05:01 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 04:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

He's made an assertion that evolution is blind. He has never demonstrated that it is a fact that it is blind. If he or anyone else can demonstrate that evolution is blind, let them build an evolution simulator in which the fitness paradigm is not contrived.

You should not use his example of non-blind evolution as compelling evidence that evolution is blind. He claimed evolution is blind as a fact and then admits he could not demonstrate it. Something is a fact only if it is demonstrably true otherwise it just an assertion or an opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 05:00 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 04:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 04:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

What can survive and reproduce continues to survive and reproduce. It doesn't home in on anything. Do you also think a rock falling down a mountain homes in on it's next temporary location? or does it just follow the route determined by the natural forces acting on it?

Why do you keep throwing around the phrase fitness paradigm when it doesn't make sense?
The laws of physics, the attributes of the rock, and the attributes of the terrain will guide the rock to its final resting place. We can predict with some degree of accuracy where that final resting place will be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 05:03 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 04:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.
Yes, he is saying that. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation for life as we observe it.
There is no external direction required to make the naturalistic explanation work.

And once again, there is no fitness paradigm observed. That requires an external intelligence.

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, 06:01 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  And once again, there is no fitness paradigm observed. That requires an external intelligence.

Evolution doesn't work without selection. Selection is a process itself that requires a paradigm or model upon which preferance is determined. In biological evolution the fitness paradigm includes environmental adaptiveness. Those organism which are more adapt are selected to pass on thier genes. There are plenty of examples of the environment weeding out certain members of a population. Your claim that in biological evolution no fitness paradigm is observed is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 06:03 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  And once again, there is no fitness paradigm observed. That requires an external intelligence.

Evolution doesn't work without selection. Selection is a process itself that requires a paradigm or model upon which preferance is determined. In biological evolution the fitness paradigm includes environmental adaptiveness. Those organism which are more adapt are selected to pass on thier genes.


No, there is no paradigm or model; there is simply the environment.

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
04-03-2013, 06:11 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, there is no paradigm or model; there is simply the environment.

But you will agree there is something by which things are selected for or selected against in any evolutionary system. I coined the term fitness paradigm as encompassing label of all those things. If there is already a label or more appropriate term let me know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 06:11 PM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Ok, now it feels like we are going around in circles.

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, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 06:20 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 05:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The laws of physics, the attributes of the rock, and the attributes of the terrain will guide the rock to its final resting place. We can predict with some degree of accuracy where that final resting place will be.

Yes, the more you know about the variables that play a part in a event the more you will know the final outcome. We can guess what evolution may yield in a certain population but it's impossible to know for sure, because there are different ways organisms can evolve to meet specific challenges.

For example say there are two very simple organisms, single celled even. 'Organism 1' is devouring 'Organism 2' with the use of a protein embedded in it's membrane that breaks down the membrane of 'Organism 2'. For 'Organism 2' to have a better chance of survival they need to adapt, but there isn't only one way that it could adapt to meet this challenge.

Scenario 1: A group of 'Organism 2' could adapt a new protein that is incorporated into the membrane which prevents 'Organism 1' from devouring them, in essence 'hardening' the membrane. If the main food supply of 'Organism 1' is 'Organism 2' then they may be forced to adapt in a way that is capable of breaking down this new protein embedded membrane, or to take advantage of another food source.

Scenario 2: A group of 'Organism 2' could also adapt a protein that is capable of breaking down other organisms membranes, just like 'Organism 1', and so would be on equal ground them. So instead of having a higher chance of 'Organism 1' from going extinct, the populations roughly even out (assuming each is just as efficient at breaking down the others membranes).

Both scenarios could lead to completely different results in the long run, and it would be completely dependant on what mutations occurred. To cause a specific type of organism to evolve, one would have to be in control of every variation (mutation or cross over) that occurs through time. If a god is responsible then he would have to tinker with mutations (and local of cross overs of genes for sexual reproduction) every once in a while, and so would not be someone that is just sitting in the sidelines.

It's not that this is impossible, but if that is the case then evidence must be presented in support of that scenario. Much like how evidence needs to be presented that fairies pulling and tugging particles is the result of gravity, electromagnetism, dark matter, and dark energy. However probable or improbable it is, just stating it is possible does nothing.

Or god set everything in motion at the moment of the big bang in such a way that everything conveniently played out so we would be the result (not even a result, but a single stage of the entire process), right, because that's not wishful thinking at all. This isn't science. This isn't following the evidence to a conclusion, it's having a belief about how things are and trying to find evidence or twist evidence to support it.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:11 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Ok, now it feels like we are going around in circles.
I think Chas and I are still having a meaningful discussion. Sure a lot of stuff is being repeated but there is an occassional new nugget here and there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: