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
07-03-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
The things that factor into selection... Are the environment. So your "fitness paradigm" is just a fancy word for the environment. I'm glad that's settled.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
07-03-2013, 06:28 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 01:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 01:37 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  So could Zeus. What's your point?

My point is that Zeus(or any other sufficient intellect) could/can use evolution as a tool of creation. Evolution is guided by the fitness paradigm not blind as suggested by Dawkins. Correctly design the fitness paradigm, let evolution run, and the result will be what you desire.

Do you agree with the above claim?

Zeus, or Pixies, or the Spaghetti monster. You can play the possibilities game all you want, it's getting you nowhere. As has been pointed out this isn't science, it's rubbish. We already told you that the environmental factors that effect evolution of a organism could not be manipulated to produce a specific form. Are you going to continue to ignore refutations and continue with your wishful thinking?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 06:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 06:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, there is no 'fitness paradigm'. You have presented no evidence or mechanism for its existence. Evolutionary biologists have presented copious evidence that evolution is not guided.

Please explain how your 'fitness paradigm' functions, where the information is stored, how it affects mutation, how it affects survival, how it affects reproduction, and so on.
Chas, read the thread please. I have said several times already, fitness paradigm is the label for all the things or factors that go into selection. So for you to say that it doesn't exist is to say that there are no factors which go into selection.....which is silly. I suppose you could be saying that there are factors which go into selection but its is logically impossible to aggregate them and give them a label....but that position is equally silly.

There is the environment. "Fitness paradigm" is both unnecessary and misleading. Paradigm essentially means model, and there is no model; there is simply the environment. No model, no direction, no goals.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 06:55 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 06:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 06:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, there is no 'fitness paradigm'. You have presented no evidence or mechanism for its existence. Evolutionary biologists have presented copious evidence that evolution is not guided.

Please explain how your 'fitness paradigm' functions, where the information is stored, how it affects mutation, how it affects survival, how it affects reproduction, and so on.
Chas, read the thread please. I have said several times already, fitness paradigm is the label for all the things or factors that go into selection. So for you to say that it doesn't exist is to say that there are no factors which go into selection.....which is silly. I suppose you could be saying that there are factors which go into selection but its is logically impossible to aggregate them and give them a label....but that position is equally silly.

You can't set how many creatures are born or when they die naturally.
You can't set random mutations when a cell divides.
You can't set how creatures interact and respond to each other or their environment.
You can't set when an animal performs the act of reproduction or which particular sperm arrives at the egg first.


You can't control every aspect of every molecule in play within an environment.
You can't alter physical laws.

You can't SET an ever changing environment.

You might as well say that everything in the universe was created this morning, including all our memories of the past.
If you want to imagine that a fitness paradigm can be "created" and maintained for every atom, molecule and quark in the universe, then I can say it was all created this morning.

Stop imagining what COULD be "if" a being of incredible power existed and START observing the world as it IS, not as you would like it to be.

Just STOP

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
07-03-2013, 07:03 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 06:28 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Zeus, or Pixies, or the Spaghetti monster. You can play the possibilities game all you want, it's getting you nowhere. As has been pointed out this isn't science, it's rubbish. We already told you that the environmental factors that effect evolution of a organism could not be manipulated to produce a specific form. Are you going to continue to ignore refutations and continue with your wishful thinking?

I don't find your counter assertion to be compelling. If I am raising tilapia fish and I want to end up with a variety that is more cold resistant, lowering the temperature of the pond for enough generations will produce fish who are more fit for the new temperature then the original ancestor was.

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, 07:20 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 06:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 06:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Chas, read the thread please. I have said several times already, fitness paradigm is the label for all the things or factors that go into selection. So for you to say that it doesn't exist is to say that there are no factors which go into selection.....which is silly. I suppose you could be saying that there are factors which go into selection but its is logically impossible to aggregate them and give them a label....but that position is equally silly.

There is the environment. "Fitness paradigm" is both unnecessary and misleading. Paradigm essentially means model, and there is no model; there is simply the environment. No model, no direction, no goals.

In biological evolution environment and fitness paradigm are interchangeable. Evolution isn't exclusive to biology which is why I coined fitness paradigm. Suppose you could replicate the evironments in which the tasmanian wolf and gray wolf evolved. If you took a clone of their common ancestor and stuck it in a model of that environment, there is a very strong chance another wolf shaped species evolves. Some other shape might evolve but what ever evolves is going to come from a set of shapes(remember the target isn't a bulleyse) which is specifically fit for that paradigm. You wouldn't see a seal evolve for instance.

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, 07:43 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 07:03 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 06:28 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Zeus, or Pixies, or the Spaghetti monster. You can play the possibilities game all you want, it's getting you nowhere. As has been pointed out this isn't science, it's rubbish. We already told you that the environmental factors that effect evolution of a organism could not be manipulated to produce a specific form. Are you going to continue to ignore refutations and continue with your wishful thinking?

I don't find your counter assertion to be compelling. If I am raising tilapia fish and I want to end up with a variety that is more cold resistant, lowering the temperature of the pond for enough generations will produce fish who are more fit for the new temperature then the original ancestor was.

Yes, because you're altering their environment, thus they will evolve to be better suited for their environment. Drinking Beverage

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
07-03-2013, 07:54 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 07:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 06:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is the environment. "Fitness paradigm" is both unnecessary and misleading. Paradigm essentially means model, and there is no model; there is simply the environment. No model, no direction, no goals.

In biological evolution environment and fitness paradigm are interchangeable. Evolution isn't exclusive to biology which is why I coined fitness paradigm. Suppose you could replicate the evironments in which the tasmanian wolf and gray wolf evolved. If you took a clone of their common ancestor and stuck it in a model of that environment, there is a very strong chance another wolf shaped species evolves. Some other shape might evolve but what ever evolves is going to come from a set of shapes(remember the target isn't a bulleyse) which is specifically fit for that paradigm. You wouldn't see a seal evolve for instance.

False assertion. If you put the common ancestor of canidae into the environment of a wolf it would likely evolve into something fairly wolf-like. However if you put the common ancestor of carnivora into that environment, you might get something like a weasel or something like a bear or something like a wolf, or something entirely new.

You're suggesting that all life fits into pre-determined niches and forms. Thus you could arbitrarily stop at any point in time and say, "Well look, every form of life that currently exists falls into these sets of forms. Therefore all life evolves toward these forms because that's what the fitness paradigm has chosen."


Your fitness paradigm, I see now, is distinct from the environment. It's an unnecessary addition.

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
07-03-2013, 08:33 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2013 08:37 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 06:55 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  You can't set how many creatures are born or when they die naturally.
You can't set random mutations when a cell divides.
You can't set how creatures interact and respond to each other or their environment.
You can't set when an animal performs the act of reproduction or which particular sperm arrives at the egg first.


You can't control every aspect of every molecule in play within an environment.
You can't alter physical laws.

You can't SET an ever changing environment.

Rhan, I appreaciate your criticism here. It raises an important point. Remember I said the fitness paradigm directs evolution toward targets. By targets I mean a set of fit forms. How large or small that set of fit forms is going to be is function of how contrived the fitness paradigm is.

For instance, imagine a reality just like ours in which there is a planet just like ours. On that planet beings evolved which are just like humans. Everything is equal in these two realities except for one thing. In this imagined reality lighting is attracted to red hair. It is so attracted to red hair that it is unlikely a red headed being survives into adulthood. On this imagined planet you would not find gingers. Diversity is decreased at an increase in contrivity.

I will concede that if God designed the fitness paradigm evolution follows on this planet, it wasn't a very contrived paradigm....at least not from my prespective. But does the fitness paradigm have to be that contrived to produce a desire result? Suppose a great and powerful intellectual agent finds a planet in which complex life is evolving. That great and powerful intellect decides he wants intelligent life to evolve on that planet. If he makes one change such that every 100 million years or so the planet is struct by a meteor of sufficient size that it kills off the current dominate species thus paving the way for a new dominate species to evolve then isn't he directing the evolution on that planet to eventually produce a dominate species with the intellect to be able to deflect asteriods?

The intellect can alter the course of evolution because evolution is on a course. It is not blind as suggested by Dawkins.

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, 08:38 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
You can say it's not blind as much as you like, but unless you can back it up with evidence it remains unproven. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: