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, 08:50 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
There is no "fittness paradigm".

There is no pattern whatsoever to evolve. Natural selection means "better adapted for immediate, local environment". It is not the "fittest", not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 08:56 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Heywood, how do you like my definition of a fitness paradigm?

A fitness paradigm is a selection filter
that drives the evolutionary progression toward
Specific increases or decreases in fitness or form to meet paradigm parameters

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
04-03-2013, 09:33 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 09:44 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 08:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Heywood, how do you like my definition of a fitness paradigm?

A fitness paradigm is a selection filter
that drives the evolutionary progression toward
Specific increases or decreases in fitness or form to meet paradigm parameters

I would define it as:

A fitness paradigm is an aggregation of all the factors of selection.

Understanding the aggregation of all these selection factors yeilds a model or target of fitness toward which things will tend to evolve. In biological evolution the fitness paradigm is constantly changing because the factors of selection are changing. Further biological evolution is subject to drift which counter acts the tendency to move toward the model established by the fitness paradigm.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 09:46 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 08:50 PM)kim Wrote:  There is no "fittness paradigm".

There is no pattern whatsoever to evolve. Natural selection means "better adapted for immediate, local environment". It is not the "fittest", not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.
Eyes have evolved independently multiple times on this planet(i recollect it is at least 7x). If we ever find complex life on other planets, it will probably have eyes. Eyes are a repeating pattern in evolution.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 09:47 PM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 08:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Heywood, how do you like my definition of a fitness paradigm?

A fitness paradigm is a selection filter
that drives the evolutionary progression toward
Specific increases or decreases in fitness or form to meet paradigm parameters

Excellent work! You have described a product specification! Now go ye, and code.

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, 09:52 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 09:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 08:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Heywood, how do you like my definition of a fitness paradigm?

A fitness paradigm is a selection filter
that drives the evolutionary progression toward
Specific increases or decreases in fitness or form to meet paradigm parameters

I would define it as:

A fitness paradigm is an aggregation of all the factors of selection.

Understanding the aggregation of all these selection factors yeilds a model or target of fitness toward which things will tend to evolve. In biological evolution the fitness paradigm is constantly changing because the factors of selection are changing. Further biological evolution is subject to drift which counter acts the tendency to move toward the model established by the fitness paradigm.

So you'd define it as,

A fitness paradigm is a selection filter
that drives the evolutionary aggregation toward
Specific increases or decreases in fitness or form to meet the paradigm model

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
04-03-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 09:52 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 09:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I would define it as:

A fitness paradigm is an aggregation of all the factors of selection.

Understanding the aggregation of all these selection factors yeilds a model or target of fitness toward which things will tend to evolve. In biological evolution the fitness paradigm is constantly changing because the factors of selection are changing. Further biological evolution is subject to drift which counter acts the tendency to move toward the model established by the fitness paradigm.

So you'd define it as,

A fitness paradigm is a selection filter
that drives the evolutionary aggregation toward
Specific increases or decreases in fitness or form to meet the paradigm model
No, that is not how I define it.
On a side note a paradigm is a model so saying paradigm model is redundent.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 10:00 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
So

A fitness paradigm is a selection filter
that drives the evolutionary aggregation toward
Specific increases or decreases in fitness or form to meet the paradigm's goals



Better?

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
04-03-2013, 10:00 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 10:03 PM by Rahn127.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Is your fitness paradigm an attempt to predict the future of evolutionary lines ?
"a model or target of fitness toward which things will tend to evolve"

If you know all the unknown environmental factors and know how each individual animal in each species will react to those unknown factors and of course can predict how the unknown factors will react with the bodies of animals that haven't yet been born, then ya, I suppose you could create a model that would predict future evolution.


But I think you would need an all knowing god to gain that much information.
Too bad one doesn't exist.

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, 10:02 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 09:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 08:50 PM)kim Wrote:  There is no "fittness paradigm".

There is no pattern whatsoever to evolve. Natural selection means "better adapted for immediate, local environment". It is not the "fittest", not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.
Eyes have evolved independently multiple times on this planet(i recollect it is at least 7x). If we ever find complex life on other planets, it will probably have eyes. Eyes are a repeating pattern in evolution.

Moles eyes are vestigial.... largely atrophied & possibly being phased out by natural selection. Even Darwin cited the mole as an example of this bit of randomness in evolution.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: