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
06-03-2013, 02:05 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 03:00 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  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.

I never said patterns imply an external intelligence. I never even said the fitness paradigm implies an external intelligence. I'm not sure where you are getting this from other that its easy for you to pretend I said something and then attack it instead of attacking something I actually said.

Getting back to the fitness paradigm. Remember its a label for the aggregate of all things that go into selection. So saying it doesn't exist is saying it is impossible to put a name on the collection of things which goes into selection. What do the things that go into selection do? Well they determine the form. I call it a fitness paradigm because A)it primarily has to do with fitness and B) if you understand it you can use it predict what evolution will do....you can model it(paradigm is another word model).

If you ever design your own evolutionary processes, it will include some sort of fitness paradigm. For instance, it might be 1 fitness function in a computer program or it might be 10 fitness functions in a computer program. It will however direct or guide evolution toward certain traits, shapes, or forms.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 02:43 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 02:53 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-03-2013 02:05 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I never said patterns imply an external intelligence. I never even said the fitness paradigm implies an external intelligence. I'm not sure where you are getting this from other that its easy for you to pretend I said something and then attack it instead of attacking something I actually said.

Getting back to the fitness paradigm. Remember its a label for the aggregate of all things that go into selection. So saying it doesn't exist is saying it is impossible to put a name on the collection of things which goes into selection. What do the things that go into selection do? Well they determine the form. I call it a fitness paradigm because A)it primarily has to do with fitness and B) if you understand it you can use it predict what evolution will do....you can model it(paradigm is another word model).

If you ever design your own evolutionary processes, it will include some sort of fitness paradigm. For instance, it might be 1 fitness function in a computer program or it might be 10 fitness functions in a computer program. It will however direct or guide evolution toward certain traits, shapes, or forms.

Stop being dishonest, you joined an atheist forum to troll. Chances of you not believing in a god are slim.

You said that there are recurring patterns, like eyes that crop up due to evolution. In your original post you make multiple claims.

(28-02-2013 07:49 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Dawkins error is in making the claim that evolution is blind and does not home in on specific targets like his computer program. Convergent Evolution is strong evidence that he is wrong. Convergent evolution is the tendecy of independently evolved organisms to sometimes take on the same biological traits and forms.

Dawkin's got it wrong because evolution isn't blind. It is guided. It is guided by the fitness function or as I call it the fitness paradigm which determines which random mutations get passed on. The intelligent designers got it wrong by thinking God is manipulating genes mutations to cause the occurence of complexity that could not arise on its own. God doesn't have to do that because when you design the fitness paradigm, you design/determine the products of evolution.


First off, you lack an understanding of what constitutes as good evidence. Implying convergent evolution is evidence that evolution is not blind when divergence/convergence rates appear to follow chance. There is a much higher chance of a mutation causing a divergence than convergence between two species; we see have a lot more examples of divergence than convergence.

When you flip a coun 100 times and end up with 45 heads and 55 tails do you assume there was guidance for that coin from somewhere to land on one more than the other? Hopefully not, it follows expected chance.

1: The fitness paradigm determines which random mutations get passed on.
2: By designing the fitness paradigm in a specific way you can design/determine the products of evolution.

These two pieces of information conflict with each other. How do you expect to determine the result of random changes? (if they are in fact random). Since there are multiple adaptations a organism could undergo to meet a specific challenge, there is no way to determine which path an organism will take. The best you could possibly do is determine the probability of one change happening over another. So in your opinion, did god set this all up so that humans would probably crop up?

and back to the patterns. I pointed out that we see a pattern in the senses of organisms because there are finite methods of detection that are possible. It is most survivally advantageous for an organism to evolve as many of these methods of detection (senses) as it can, so long as it is in an environment that sense can be taken advantage of. Thus the patterns are explainable, without the woo-woo of divine intervention directing evolution to specific form/forms, be it directly or indirectly.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 03:20 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-03-2013 02:43 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  [Stop being dishonest, you joined an atheist forum to troll. Chances of you not believing in a god are slim.

You said that there are recurring patterns, like eyes that crop up due to evolution. In your original post you make multiple claims.

So how does believing in God imply that I believe patterns are evidence of an external intelligence? It doesn't. Calling me a troll doesn't help your case either. To be honest...it makes you look weak.


Quote:First off, you lack an understanding of what constitutes as good evidence. Implying convergent evolution is evidence that evolution is not blind when divergence/convergence rates appear to follow chance. There is a much higher chance of a mutation causing a divergence than convergence between two species; we see have a lot more examples of divergence than convergence.

Do you have any evidence convergence and divergence rate appear to follow chance? No...I didn't think so. Look, if you design an evolution simulator to select organisms which best chase a red dot...guess what happens...the evolved organisms become very good at chasing a red dot. This isn't unexpected....infact its quite predictable. Why is it predictable? Because evolution isn't some blind process whose outcomes are the result of happenstance. If you can predict behaviour, you can predict form.

Quote:When you flip a coun 100 times and end up with 45 heads and 55 tails do you assume there was guidance for that coin from somewhere to land on one more than the other? Hopefully not, it follows expected chance.

1: The fitness paradigm determines which random mutations get passed on.
2: By designing the fitness paradigm in a specific way you can design/determine the products of evolution.

These two pieces of information conflict with each other. How do you expect to determine the result of random changes? (if they are in fact random). Since there are multiple adaptations a organism could undergo to meet a specific challenge, there is no way to determine which path an organism will take. The best you could possibly do is determine the probability of one change happening over another. So in your opinion, did god set this all up so that humans would probably crop up?

Law of big numbers. I may not know how ten coin flips will turn out. But I know if the coin is flipped 50 billion times, it will be so close to 50% heads and 50% tails that any variance will be insignificant.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 09:19 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 03:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 02:07 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Awww, he's still forgiving us. Isn't that cute? He's not bothering to debate, not bothering to try to alter or fix or even support his flawed premise. Just forgiveness. I guess he's proving he's better than us so he doesn't have to try to support his flawed premise?
When people throw insults, I lose my motivation to debate with them. I may be prejudice but I find insult throwers to be closed minded people.
What insult? I called you cute. I'd blow you.

OK, not really.

I forgive you for being prejudiced.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-03-2013 02:43 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  When you flip a coun 100 times and end up with 45 heads and 55 tails do you assume there was guidance for that coin from somewhere to land on one more than the other? Hopefully not, it follows expected chance.

1: The fitness paradigm determines which random mutations get passed on.
2: By designing the fitness paradigm in a specific way you can design/determine the products of evolution.

These two pieces of information conflict with each other. How do you expect to determine the result of random changes? (if they are in fact random). Since there are multiple adaptations a organism could undergo to meet a specific challenge, there is no way to determine which path an organism will take. The best you could possibly do is determine the probability of one change happening over another. So in your opinion, did god set this all up so that humans would probably crop up?

Just because a process uses a random element doesn't mean the process itself is completely random. In a casino, overtime a roulette wheel gives the house a very specific return for every dollar bet. Even though poker players are delt random cards, you can predict who is a winning poker player and who isn't just by looking at the cards they select to play. Paint droplets that randomly pass thru a template form letters and words.

Your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory stems from too much focus on the random element while ignoring the power of the selection element.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 03:37 PM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
What is the ultimate 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
06-03-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
And your misunderstanding of evolution stems from too much emphasis on the magical powers of your "fitness paradigm", without recognizing the fact that selection is bound by the random mutations that do develop.


As far as I can tell, your "fitness paradigm" is an attempt to redefine selection so as to imply that it has a chosen direction. If that's not the case, then you clearly are incapable of comprehensible debate.

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
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
06-03-2013, 04:42 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-03-2013 02:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Just because a process uses a random element doesn't mean the process itself is completely random. In a casino, overtime a roulette wheel gives the house a very specific return for every dollar bet. Even though poker players are delt random cards, you can predict who is a winning poker player and who isn't just by looking at the cards they select to play. Paint droplets that randomly pass thru a template form letters and words.

Your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory stems from too much focus on the random element while ignoring the power of the selection element.
Your telling me I misunderstand evolution? That's rich.

I don't focus on more on either the random mutations or the selection, they are both part of the whole. Your focusing on selection and assuming a specific environment will result in very specific mutations being passed on which are predictable, and will result in specific forms. While there are patterns that crop up, for obvious reasons I have already pointed out, there isn't only one way an organism can adapt to be better suited to it's environment. How does your intelligence get around this?

Your entire argument stems from your belief in, and need to fit your god into the explanation.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 06:20 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Group (A) - A group of 1000 mice are placed in a certain "fitness paradigm".
Another group Group (B) of 1000 identical genetic clones of the first 1000 are placed in another identical "fitness paradigm".

These two separate identical groups with identical environments are then allowed to breed and reproduce over 1,000,000,000 generations.

They will not yield anywhere near the same results.
Evolution will take them down different paths, split them into various new species.
There is no direction that evolution will take them.
There is no specific form they are destined to take.

You cannot control how many new mice are born from each mother.
You cannot control how many live or how many die from generation to generation.
You cannot control how mutations happen.
You cannot control a billion other aspects that can alter the evolutionary process.

You may get similarities in function, in form or in usefulness, but you won't get what you want.
You won't get a direction. You won't get some guiding force.
What you will get is an observable example of evolution at work.

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
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
06-03-2013, 06:38 PM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-03-2013 06:20 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Group (A) - A group of 1000 mice are placed in a certain "fitness paradigm".
Another group Group (B) of 1000 identical genetic clones of the first 1000 are placed in another identical "fitness paradigm".

These two separate identical groups with identical environments are then allowed to breed and reproduce over 1,000,000,000 generations.

They will not yield anywhere near the same results.
Evolution will take them down different paths, split them into various new species.
There is no direction that evolution will take them.
There is no specific form they are destined to take.

You cannot control how many new mice are born from each mother.
You cannot control how many live or how many die from generation to generation.
You cannot control how mutations happen.
You cannot control a billion other aspects that can alter the evolutionary process.

You may get similarities in function, in form or in usefulness, but you won't get what you want.
You won't get a direction. You won't get some guiding force.
What you will get is an observable example of evolution at work.

And this is just the reproductive aspects of the environment you are describing. What about the planet? HJ, are you suggesting the planet was also perfectly tuned to produce a specific form? That every volcano, every asteroid impact, every solar flare that contributed to the environmental impacts on the development of life were also somehow controlled?

Again I ask you: to what end? What is this mysterious target form you are trying to lead us to?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: