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
05-03-2013, 01:51 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
I forgive him for this waste-of-time thread, and for providing no evidence for this lame-brain business of "fitness paradigm".

So HWJBM, why do 95, (or is it 99 ?) percent of species go extinct if they have evolved, and even converged in many instances ? Real fitness design there. Yes indeed. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 02:10 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 01:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I forgive him for this waste-of-time thread, and for providing no evidence for this lame-brain business of "fitness paradigm".

So HWJBM, why do 95, (or is it 99 ?) percent of species go extinct if they have evolved, and even converged in many instances ? Real fitness design there. Yes indeed. Weeping
Because some or all the selection factors which make up the fitness paradigm change. This results in a change of the fitness paradigm and then the process of evolution begins to favor new and different shapes at the expense of the old.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 02:39 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 02:10 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 01:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I forgive him for this waste-of-time thread, and for providing no evidence for this lame-brain business of "fitness paradigm".

So HWJBM, why do 95, (or is it 99 ?) percent of species go extinct if they have evolved, and even converged in many instances ? Real fitness design there. Yes indeed. Weeping
Because some or all the selection factors which make up the fitness paradigm change. This results in a change of the fitness paradigm and then the process of evolution begins to favor new and different shapes at the expense of the old.

Super duper. Now all ya gotta do is demonstrate 1 piece of evidence for it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:04 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 02:10 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Because some or all the selection factors which make up the fitness paradigm change. This results in a change of the fitness paradigm and then the process of evolution begins to favor new and different shapes at the expense of the old.

Maybe if the fitness paradigm is just right, we will end up with square heads. Oval is so yesterday.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
05-03-2013, 05:56 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
I think survival/reproduction paradigm might be better than "fitness". Those that survive and reproduce....evolve.

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
05-03-2013, 08:51 AM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
HJ, what evidence do you have that there is any form of fitness paradigm? What is the target form?

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
05-03-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 10:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 10:02 PM)kim Wrote:  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 ?

Sorry Bucky... I meant to put "quotation marks" around "randomness" because I was being sarcastic... I'm typing on some cheapo tablet... When BlowJob suggested eyes were some kind of repeating pattern that would appear on other planets, my example and Darwin's, was that moles are adapting to their environment and losing their eyes - their eyes are vestigial - slowly going away in that species... much like our appendix. Some things have a use in some species and for others elsewhere, those same things don't ... there is not "pattern" or "paradigm" and it's certainly not "fittness" as I sait before.... it's immediate and local adaptaation.

I'll try to not confuse the issue with sarcasm now that I see he's not up on his understanding of evolution. Plus, this tablet is killing my ability to express an idea clearly.

BlowJob needs to read On the Origin of the Species - it's very self explainatory.

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
05-03-2013, 02:19 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 09:39 AM)kim Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 10:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 ?

Sorry Bucky... I meant to put "quotation marks" around "randomness" because I was being sarcastic... I'm typing on some cheapo tablet... When BlowJob suggested eyes were some kind of repeating pattern that would appear on other planets, my example and Darwin's, was that moles are adapting to their environment and losing their eyes - their eyes are vestigial - slowly going away in that species... much like our appendix. Some things have a use in some species and for others elsewhere, those same things don't ... there is not "pattern" or "paradigm" and it's certainly not "fittness" as I sait before.... it's immediate and local adaptaation.

I'll try to not confuse the issue with sarcasm now that I see he's not up on his understanding of evolution. Plus, this tablet is killing my ability to express an idea clearly.

BlowJob needs to read On the Origin of the Species - it's very self explainatory.
Kim, If your understanding of evolution is such that it makes you blind to seeing repeating patterns in it, you need to revist the subject.
The fact that non-used organs "go away" is itself a pattern.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 02:25 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 03:04 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 02:10 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Because some or all the selection factors which make up the fitness paradigm change. This results in a change of the fitness paradigm and then the process of evolution begins to favor new and different shapes at the expense of the old.

Maybe if the fitness paradigm is just right, we will end up with square heads. Oval is so yesterday.
Just get women to only want to have sex with guys with squarish heads. Sexual selection would take over and future generations would appear with more squareish heads. Of course we shouldn't be able to predict those things because real evolution is blind and might produce triangle heads instead. That would piss off the ladies.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 03:06 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 02:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Kim, If your understanding of evolution is such that it makes you blind to seeing repeating patterns in it, you need to revist the subject.
The fact that non-used organs "go away" is itself a pattern.

So pattern implies an external intelligence how? There are a finite amount of ways in which the external world can be detected. Each one of these benefits survival so long as they can be put to use. As previously mentioned, that specifc mole doesn't have any need for eyes, so they are being phased out. Moles with mutations that effected the functioning of the eye were not affecting their survival rate, and so passed on these mutated genes as easily as moles with functioning eyes which eventually leads to the phasing out of that aspect of the creature entirely.

Pressure (touch): It's great to know when your being crushed or not.
Vibrational Energy (touch-temperature): It's helpful to know if your freezing or burning.
Radiant energy (sight): it's helpful to see a predator chasing/stalking you.
Pressure waves (hearing): It's helpful to hear a predator chasing/stalking you when you cannot see them, or to hear flowing water.
Chemical senses (Taste, Smell): Assists in avoiding harmful/toxic plants, smell can also be used as a third way to detect predators.

Eyes cropping up is a pattern? Of course. This is taking advantage of an extra way to sense the environment, which is a survival advantage.

Does it imply a creator or underlying purpose/goal beyond survival and reproduction? No.

Organisms are typically in competition with each other, they are more likely to outlast 'opponents' and survive if they are taking advantage of each of the ways in which the environment can be detected.

Please give me an example of some other forms of sensing the environment you think should have cropped up in species instead of these.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  We should exalt Richard Dawkins as a mythical religious leader! Mathilda 41 640 28-04-2014 02:07 AM
Last Post: Mathilda
  Richard Carrier or Easter...? Raptor Jesus 20 304 13-04-2014 07:02 PM
Last Post: evenheathen
  Is there an "atheist movement"? If so, what are its goals? shimmyjimmy 42 776 21-03-2014 10:48 AM
Last Post: EvolutionKills
  By Design? houseofcantor 8 353 20-12-2013 07:46 PM
Last Post: GirlyMan
Information Are you a follower of the "New Atheism" movement YarMatey 23 903 20-10-2013 12:23 PM
Last Post: Anjele
  Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science Diogenes of Mayberry 41 1,091 18-10-2013 12:11 AM
Last Post: Diogenes of Mayberry
  Intelligent Apex Argument Mike 24 901 16-09-2013 12:46 PM
Last Post: ridethespiral
Forum Jump: