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, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 07:15 PM by kim.)
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.

Riiiiiiight.... ok.. I accept there is a pattern... just like there is a numerical pattern in ..... pi. Dodgy

There is no patterned achievement or "fitness paradigm" or "goal" for evolution, it is simply the local and immediate adaptations of species.

I have read On the Origin of the Species but it seems you have not. I would recommend doing so before proceeding to incorporate evolution into your odd slant or agenda. It's never a good idea to make intentionally false statements about something which a lot of people have done a great deal of research, confirming and reconfirming of... it will just make your agenda look ill conceived at best.

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
06-03-2013, 06:57 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
i dont know what they have in common but i can sure as hell tell you how they differ..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 09:28 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 09:45 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(05-03-2013 02:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 09:39 AM)kim Wrote:  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.

Kimmy,
BlowJob has no appendix. It went away. It's a pattern. Oh wait ...

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : 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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-03-2013, 12:55 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-03-2013 04:42 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  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?

I have said this before that the "target" determined by the fitness paradigm is not necessarily a bullseye....that the fitness paradigm doesn't necessarily direct evolution to a specific form but rather to a set of fit forms. Did you ignored it the last time I said it or were you bamboozaled by the word "set"?

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 12:57 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-03-2013 03:37 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  What is the ultimate target form?
That is determined by the fitness paradigm. All those things which go into selection determine what forms will appear.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 01:00 AM
RE: 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.
Are you sure? Alligators and Crocs haven't changed much at all in the last 250 million years.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 01:09 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-03-2013 06:38 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  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?

I haven't suggested that anything was tuned. Not yet at least. I may in the future....or I may not. You will have to actually read and comprehend what I actually say instead of making assumption.

What I said is that Dawkins is wrong about evolution being "blind" in the sense that it doesn't home in on anything. I suggested that evolution is guided by the fitness paradigm and does home in on shapes which are determined by the fitness paradigm. I suggested the ID'st are wrong to think God has to manipulate the mutations, when all God has to do is design the fitness paradigm. Then after I said those things....Bucky went apeshit cause I said Dawkins was wrong.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 02:49 AM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 01:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-03-2013 06:38 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  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?

I haven't suggested that anything was tuned. Not yet at least. I may in the future....or I may not. You will have to actually read and comprehend what I actually say instead of making assumption.

What I said is that Dawkins is wrong about evolution being "blind" in the sense that it doesn't home in on anything. I suggested that evolution is guided by the fitness paradigm and does home in on shapes which are determined by the fitness paradigm. I suggested the ID'st are wrong to think God has to manipulate the mutations, when all God has to do is design the fitness paradigm. Then after I said those things....Bucky went apeshit cause I said Dawkins was wrong.

So...you're toying with us?

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
07-03-2013, 02:59 AM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2013 03:03 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 02:49 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 01:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I haven't suggested that anything was tuned. Not yet at least. I may in the future....or I may not. You will have to actually read and comprehend what I actually say instead of making assumption.

What I said is that Dawkins is wrong about evolution being "blind" in the sense that it doesn't home in on anything. I suggested that evolution is guided by the fitness paradigm and does home in on shapes which are determined by the fitness paradigm. I suggested the ID'st are wrong to think God has to manipulate the mutations, when all God has to do is design the fitness paradigm. Then after I said those things....Bucky went apeshit cause I said Dawkins was wrong.

So...you're toying with us?

No, I wanted to make the point that evolutionary processes can be used by intellects to create very specifics things. If an intellect is going to use an evolutionary process, it isn't going to tweak mutation but rather tweak the fitness paradigm. I want to challenge your world veiw that evolution is an intrinsically an unguided process. It is a guided process and for now I will say the guide can either be dumb or an intellect.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 03:37 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 02:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 02:49 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  So...you're toying with us?

No, I wanted to make the point that evolutionary processes can be used by intellects to create very specifics things. If an intellect is going to use an evolutionary process, it isn't going to tweak mutation but rather tweak the fitness paradigm. I want to challenge your world veiw that evolution is an intrinsically an unguided process. It is a guided process and for now I will say the guide can either be dumb or an intellect.


So he's not saying it's 'God', but he wants to attempt to open the door for him all the same... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: