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, 10:23 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 11:17 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 10:00 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  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"


It is not an attempt to predict the future of evolutionary lines, although I suppose you could use it as such. I am positing that such paradigms exist in every evolutionary process.

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, 10:34 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
So you admit that your paradigm filter is defined by the evolutionary unit's desires. So your paradigm is basically Lamarckian evolution, and we all know that's bullocks.

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, 10:56 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 10:23 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It is not an attempt to predict the future of evolutionary lines, although I suppose you could use it as such. I am posting that such paradigms exist in every evolutionary process.

Well if you are serious about this at all, then you should work towards making predictions with your 'fitness paradigm' hypothesis. You are claiming that such paradigms exist, so prove it. After all, you did say you could label all factors. This should be no problem for you.

(04-03-2013 08:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

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, 10:57 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 01:44 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 10:02 PM)kim Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 09:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

No genius. They are not needed as they live underground. That's not random. They are adapting to their environment. No design involved .. either in the adaptation, or the environment. Have you ever considered taking a Biology course ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 11:24 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 10:34 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  So you admit that your paradigm filter is defined by the evolutionary unit's desires. So your paradigm is basically Lamarckian evolution, and we all know that's bullocks.


Perhaps you could provide a quote where I admit that because I don't remember ever doing so. Right now I will dismiss your comment there as a common straw man. However I will say this, you may see some interest in Lamarckism come back as we learn more about epigenetics.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 12:01 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 11:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 10:34 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  So you admit that your paradigm filter is defined by the evolutionary unit's desires. So your paradigm is basically Lamarckian evolution, and we all know that's bullocks.


Perhaps you could provide a quote where I admit that because I don't remember ever doing so. Right now I will dismiss your comment there as a common straw man. However I will say this, you may see some interest in Lamarckism come back as we learn more about epigenetics.

It's obvious from the definition.


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

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
05-03-2013, 12:22 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 12:01 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 11:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Perhaps you could provide a quote where I admit that because I don't remember ever doing so. Right now I will dismiss your comment there as a common straw man. However I will say this, you may see some interest in Lamarckism come back as we learn more about epigenetics.

It's obvious from the definition.


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
Phaedrus, that is not my definition.
I have given up trying to have a conversation with you because I really think you are only interested in trolling me.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 12:41 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 12:22 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have given up trying to have a conversation with you because I really think you are only interested in trolling me.

What's the phrase for that again? 'Fighting fire with fire'? Consider

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
05-03-2013, 12:45 AM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 12:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 12:22 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have given up trying to have a conversation with you because I really think you are only interested in trolling me.

What's the phrase for that again? 'Fighting fire with fire'? Consider

Or did you mean "pot calling the kettle black"? AKA projecting.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
05-03-2013, 12:56 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 12:22 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 12:01 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  It's obvious from the definition.


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
Phaedrus, that is not my definition.
I have given up trying to have a conversation with you because I really think you are only interested in trolling me.

I forgive you for accusing me of trolling.

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
[+] 3 users Like Phaedrus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: