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, 08:56 PM
Re: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
All you are doing is continuously asserting your claim over and over. You've done nothing that's actually demonstrating it, which is obviously because it's tied to your belief of God.

I thought you wanted a world view challenging thought process?

If God exists he could do such a thing, but that's looking at it from that bias that isn't being productive. The evidence on evolution does not demonstrate the requirement or experience of there being am intelligent designer. To argue an aspect to saying what could be with one, is skipping a step or ignoring evidence.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 09:45 PM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Am I also noting a rather narrow attack here? You know, Dawkins may have stated in a book he wrote that natural selection is a blind process. But it's unlikely he is the only to have said and less likely he is the only one to believe it (as evidenced here). So, why have you chosen to only pick on this one line of reasoning from one book written by one person? Even were you to somehow succeed in refuting the claim, you have not addressed all the other people who have other evidence or arguments also supporting the assertion that natural selection is a blind process.

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, 10:04 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.
Or they may go extinct. There is not infinite plasticity in a species. The necessary genes may not be present and the necessary mutations may not occur.

The environment does not induce change to members of a species. Members of a species will survive or not. The members that survive contribute their DNA to the succeeding generations.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
07-03-2013, 11:08 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 08:56 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  All you are doing is continuously asserting your claim over and over. You've done nothing that's actually demonstrating it, which is obviously because it's tied to your belief of God.

I thought you wanted a world view challenging thought process?

If God exists he could do such a thing, but that's looking at it from that bias that isn't being productive. The evidence on evolution does not demonstrate the requirement or experience of there being am intelligent designer. To argue an aspect to saying what could be with one, is skipping a step or ignoring evidence.

I haven't but others have. Lenski's long term E Coli experiment has been running 25 years now. Its an experiment where they tracked the genetic changes in 12 intially identical populations. All 12 populations have shown an increase in size and all became become specialized in living on glucose. There has been some divergence as one population did evolve to use citrate but for the most part all 12 populations converged on the same traits and characteristics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...experiment



Quote:In the early years of the experiment, several common evolutionary developments
were shared by the populations. The mean fitness of each population, as measured
against the ancestor strain, increased, rapidly at first, but leveled off after
close to 20,000 generations (at which point they grew about 70% faster than the
ancestor strain). All populations evolved larger cell volumes and lower maximum
population densities, and all became specialized for living on glucose (with
declines in fitness relative to the ancestor strain when grown in dissimilar
nutrients). Of the 12 populations, four developed defects in their ability to repair
DNA
, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains.
Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds
of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated
that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation
in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations)
reaching fixation in each population.[3]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 10:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 07:03 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.
Or they may go extinct. There is not infinite plasticity in a species. The necessary genes may not be present and the necessary mutations may not occur.

The environment does not induce change to members of a species. Members of a species will survive or not. The members that survive contribute their DNA to the succeeding generations.

Chas, I never said the fitness paradigm would induce change to members of the species. Your making a straw man's argument. I said over generations change will occur in the population.
population != member.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 11:14 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 11:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 08:56 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  All you are doing is continuously asserting your claim over and over. You've done nothing that's actually demonstrating it, which is obviously because it's tied to your belief of God.

I thought you wanted a world view challenging thought process?

If God exists he could do such a thing, but that's looking at it from that bias that isn't being productive. The evidence on evolution does not demonstrate the requirement or experience of there being am intelligent designer. To argue an aspect to saying what could be with one, is skipping a step or ignoring evidence.

I haven't but others have. Lenski's long term E Coli experiment has been running 25 years now. Its an experiment where they tracked the genetic changes in 12 intially identical populations. All 12 populations have shown an increase in size and all became become specialized in living on glucose. There has been some divergence as one population did evolve to use citrate but for the most part all 12 populations converged on the same traits and characteristics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...experiment



Quote:In the early years of the experiment, several common evolutionary developments
were shared by the populations. The mean fitness of each population, as measured
against the ancestor strain, increased, rapidly at first, but leveled off after
close to 20,000 generations (at which point they grew about 70% faster than the
ancestor strain). All populations evolved larger cell volumes and lower maximum
population densities, and all became specialized for living on glucose (with
declines in fitness relative to the ancestor strain when grown in dissimilar
nutrients). Of the 12 populations, four developed defects in their ability to repair
DNA
, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains.
Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds
of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated
that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation
in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations)
reaching fixation in each population.[3]


You have mis-read or misunderstood the results. The populations have not converged.

Wikipedia Wrote:Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-03-2013, 11:27 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 09:45 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Am I also noting a rather narrow attack here? You know, Dawkins may have stated in a book he wrote that natural selection is a blind process. But it's unlikely he is the only to have said and less likely he is the only one to believe it (as evidenced here). So, why have you chosen to only pick on this one line of reasoning from one book written by one person? Even were you to somehow succeed in refuting the claim, you have not addressed all the other people who have other evidence or arguments also supporting the assertion that natural selection is a blind process.


Most of what Dawkins said in program(I never read the book, just watch his program about 5 times) I don't take an exception. It was that one bit. I took exception to it because he was passing his claim off, that evolution was blind, as a fact while admitting he failed to demonstate it.

I was educated that a fact is something that is demonstrably true. Since Dawkins was unable to demonstrate that evolution is blind, but was able to demonstrate an evolutionary process that homes in on a target, I feel I have good cause to challenge it his assertion.

And really I don't even mind if Dawkins asserts that evolution is blind. However if he assumes evolution is blind he can't credibly claim evolution is evidence an intelligent agent is not needed. His conclusion is contained in one of his premises.

You guys claim I haven't provided any evidence of my fitness paradigm and such. Keep in mind you guys haven't provided any evidence that Evolution is blind. This whole kerfuffle started with Dawkins making an assertion for which he could not provide evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 11:41 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2013 11:49 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 11:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 11:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I haven't but others have. Lenski's long term E Coli experiment has been running 25 years now. Its an experiment where they tracked the genetic changes in 12 intially identical populations. All 12 populations have shown an increase in size and all became become specialized in living on glucose. There has been some divergence as one population did evolve to use citrate but for the most part all 12 populations converged on the same traits and characteristics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...experiment


You have mis-read or misunderstood the results. The populations have not converged.

Wikipedia Wrote:Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment.


I was reluctant to bring up the Lenski experiment because its results are such that both sides could use it as evidence. In the end I figured I should because you people are correct to demand evidence and this is the best experiment that should demonstrate what I am talking about . I suspect that if this experiment runs another 25 years you will see another population or two develope the ability to use citrate in an oxygen rich environment.

Given enough time I fully expect to see speciation between the populations, but I also expect most if not all 12 populations to continue to exhibit similar forms as they have. Further it is a form which is starting to substantially differ from the original ancestor.
If after a very long time the forms of the 12 populations are more like each other than the original ancestor, this would be very strong evidence for my claim. Don't you agree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 01:07 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-03-2013 11:27 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You guys claim I haven't provided any evidence of my fitness paradigm and such. Keep in mind you guys haven't provided any evidence that Evolution is blind. This whole kerfuffle started with Dawkins making an assertion for which he could not provide evidence.


Occam's Razor and proving a negative.

We can't prove that no intelligence was involved, it's just that everything works perfectly well without positing any intelligent agent. Intelligence is not needed, nor is their any evidence to support that position. So if you want to ADD the element of intelligence to the theory, the burden of proof is upon you to show evidence in support of your positive claim (the addition of an intelligent agent into the current theory).

Come on, this is Logic 101 here...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
08-03-2013, 01:17 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(08-03-2013 01:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 11:27 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You guys claim I haven't provided any evidence of my fitness paradigm and such. Keep in mind you guys haven't provided any evidence that Evolution is blind. This whole kerfuffle started with Dawkins making an assertion for which he could not provide evidence.


Occam's Razor and proving a negative.

We can't prove that no intelligence was involved, it's just that everything works perfectly well without positing any intelligent agent. Intelligence is not needed, nor is their any evidence to support that position. So if you want to ADD the element of intelligence to the theory, the burden of proof is upon you to show evidence in support of your positive claim.

Come on, this is Logic 101 here...
The bolded part has never been demonstrated. It is an assumption that is also your conclusion. In Logic 101 this called begging the question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: