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, 06:19 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.
No, I won't. Selection is simply differential survival and reproduction. There is nothing doing any selecting.

Organisms survive or not based on their contingent fitness to the existing environment. Those that survive to reproduce pass their DNA on. Success is simply reproduction.

Changes in DNA may be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious to survival. Beneficial and neutral ones tend to be passed along more than deleterious changes. It is a mechanical, statistical, algorithmic process.

Natural selection seems to be widely misunderstood to mean that there is something doing the selection. There isn't.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
04-03-2013, 06:34 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:13 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  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' 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 result, 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.

All you've done is shown that biological evolution doesn't home in on one specific form but rather a small set of fit forms. The reason we see examples of convergent evolution is because those sets are small enough that it becomes common to see evolution give rise to similar shapes. Remember in biological evolution it is a target, not a bullseye.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 06:36 PM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

Well I'm glad you feel that way.

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, 06:41 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I won't. Selection is simply differential survival and reproduction. There is nothing doing any selecting.

Organisms survive or not based on their contingent fitness to the existing environment. Those that survive to reproduce pass their DNA on. Success is simply reproduction.

Changes in DNA may be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious to survival. Beneficial and neutral ones tend to be passed along more than deleterious changes. It is a mechanical, statistical, algorithmic process.

Natural selection seems to be widely misunderstood to mean that there is something doing the selection. There isn't.

So if winters start to get exceptionally cold in egypt, such that temperature of the Nile drops to 48 degrees and 90% of the population of tilapia fish die, you don't think that temperature drop is a thing which selects?

If you do then you think things select. Evolution isn't a process that is exclusive to biology so "environment" is too narrow a word do describe all the things which do the selecting. That is why I coined fitness paradigm as a generic label for all those things which do the selecting in an evolutionary process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 06:50 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  All you've done is shown that biological evolution doesn't home in on one specific form but rather a small set of fit forms. The reason we see examples of convergent evolution is because those sets are small enough that it becomes common to see evolution give rise to similar shapes. Remember in biological evolution it is a target, not a bullseye.

All you have done is show your obvious need to fit your god into our natural explanations. You have provided no good arguments.

Convergent evolution is not common, divergent evolution is common.

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, 07:09 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 06:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I won't. Selection is simply differential survival and reproduction. There is nothing doing any selecting.

Organisms survive or not based on their contingent fitness to the existing environment. Those that survive to reproduce pass their DNA on. Success is simply reproduction.

Changes in DNA may be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious to survival. Beneficial and neutral ones tend to be passed along more than deleterious changes. It is a mechanical, statistical, algorithmic process.

Natural selection seems to be widely misunderstood to mean that there is something doing the selection. There isn't.

So if winters start to get exceptionally cold in egypt, such that temperature of the Nile drops to 48 degrees and 90% of the population of tilapia fish die, you don't think that temperature drop is a thing which selects?

If you do then you think things select. Evolution isn't a process that is exclusive to biology so "environment" is too narrow a word do describe all the things which do the selecting. That is why I coined fitness paradigm as a generic label for all those things which do the selecting in an evolutionary process.



Temperature isn't selecting. It isn't making a choice or a decision. It's not a conscious being. It's just an environmental factor.

As environments change, creatures may adapt. If the environment changes enough to cause creatures to not survive or inhibits reproduction, species can become extinct.
Those that survive pass along their surviving genes.

You cannot label all the factors in a constantly changing environment.

A virus causing mass death in one species, gets part of it's genetic code copied and the surviving members of that species use that bit of code in a new method of child birth that didn't exist before. This new adaption helped the species to survive a bit longer. Meanwhile the virus evolves and the challenges of life go on and on.

Nothing is selecting for certain traits or intelligence or even a more healthy species.
As long as the species can reproduce, that's all that's needed.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
04-03-2013, 07:11 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 06:13 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  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' 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 result, 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.

All you've done is shown that biological evolution doesn't home in on one specific form but rather a small set of fit forms. The reason we see examples of convergent evolution is because those sets are small enough that it becomes common to see evolution give rise to similar shapes. Remember in biological evolution it is a target, not a bullseye.
No, there is no target. There is no aim, there is no direction. There is just differential survival and reproduction.

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, 07:13 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. 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.

Please demonstrate this fitness paradigm and from whence it emanates. There is nothing 'selecting'.

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, 08:10 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 06:50 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  All you have done is show your obvious need to fit your god into our natural explanations. You have provided no good arguments.

Convergent evolution is not common, divergent evolution is common.

Diversity is common because the fitness paradigm is disconnected and non-uniform.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 08:20 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 07:09 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  You cannot label all the factors in a constantly changing environment.

Sure I can.....I put all those factors into the encompassing label of the fitness paradigm.

And yes water temperature is one selection mechanism for tilapia. It is a selection mechanism whether or not there is an intellect behind it. I'm not prepared to accept the notion that the act of selecting is exclusive to intellects as you suggested.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: