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
16-03-2013, 12:04 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(15-03-2013 11:46 PM)kim Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 11:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I never claimed that just because you draw white marbles out of a bin it means all the marbles in the bin are white. I claimed that the more white marbles you draw from the bin which are white while not drawing a marble of another color, the more likely it becomes that all the marbles in the bin are white. It could be that thru happenstance the last marble you draw is black...outliers happen.

Kim, people would find you more credible if you were actually truthful.

I stated nothing untrue; if one marble were any other color than white, then all the marbles in the bin would not be white. You've not managed to convince anyone otherwise. Drinking Beverage

Then you are confusing the likelyhood of one potential outcome with the actual outcome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 12:10 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(15-03-2013 11:57 PM)kim Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 11:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If I desire to be around light colored moths, is it breeding if I plant light colored trees?

Is there something about "blind to the future" that you don't get or is it that you just don't like it?

The statement is on the verge of being nonsense. Can anything see the future?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 12:15 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
That's the point... the future is unforeseeable.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 12:27 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 12:15 AM)kim Wrote:  That's the point... the future is unforeseeable.

Not according to Dawkins, he claimed his computer program looked into the future.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 12:43 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(15-03-2013 11:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-03-2013 08:38 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  If it helps, when I think of intelligent agents (humans) using what they have learned about evolution to direct outcomes in certain species development, I tend to use the word "breeding". Is that what you're talking about, HJ?

If I desire to be around light colored moths, is it breeding if I plant light colored trees?


You're clearly referencing the peppered moths of industrialized England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth

That is a great example of natural selection at work. We were the cause for the change in the moth's environment, but it was not our intention to get the moths to change colors. They managed to adapt on their own through natural selection. But there was no guarantee that they would have managed to adapt and survive the changing environment. There was always the possibility of extinction, or that they could have adapted other advantageous traits too allow them to survive in the changing environment. It just so happens that in this case, natural selection managed to do so through camouflage. Was this an intelligent decision on our part? No. Was it an intelligent decision on the part of natural selection? No. The mutation was random, and selection pressures just happened to make the new mutation more likely to survive and spread throughout the population. If the moth's primary predators didn't rely on sight to hunt, then the camouflage wound't have helped them at all, and the mutation would not have been preferred. No intelligence required.


So no, unless changing the color of the tree was guaranteed to affect their selection pressure, it wouldn't do anything. And even if it did, you would still have no control over the outcome. Extinction is ALWAYS an option. That's why we no longer see Neanderthals and the sons of Hidelberg man walking around anymore, they went extinct. They were pushed out of their habitats by better adapted predators, homo sapiens. There was no guarantee that would happen, no intelligent agent selected us over the others. Hell, Neanderthals had bigger brains than we did! But selection pressures on the members of our species that stayed in Africa forced them to become more adaptive hunters. We developed new tools, new ways of thinking, abstract thought association, culture and art. So that when our ancestors followed the Neanderthals and Heidelbergensis out of Africa, we were better adapted to adapt ourselves to their environment. So we wiped them out, we were the primary cause of their extinction. No outside intelligence required. History could have went any number of other different ways. And judging by human's small genetic diversity, we came very close to extinction ourselves during our time in Africa.


Extinction is always an option.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 07:23 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 12:27 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 12:15 AM)kim Wrote:  That's the point... the future is unforeseeable.

Not according to Dawkins, he claimed his computer program looked into the future.

No, he didn't. Please support your contention.

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
16-03-2013, 08:57 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 07:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 12:27 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Not according to Dawkins, he claimed his computer program looked into the future.

No, he didn't. Please support your contention.

Its in the video clip Chas....at the part where he begins to say his computer program is a bit of a cheat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 09:09 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 08:57 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 07:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, he didn't. Please support your contention.

Its in the video clip Chas....at the part where he begins to say his computer program is a bit of a cheat

The cheat is that the program has a goal. It collects changes that get closer to the goal, unlike natural selection which has no goals.

The example illustrates the power of cumulative change in contrast to all-at-once change.

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
16-03-2013, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2013 04:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
And so we see the idiot that started this fucking thread never understood the video in the first place. Exposed by his own words.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-03-2013, 10:37 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 09:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And so we see the idiot that started this fucking thread never undertood the video in the first place. Exposed by his own words.

I don't know that he's an idiot but I do know he didn't pay attention to what was presented in the video. It was quite an old video, too. It is possible there have been improved upon and revised explanations for the content he seems unable to grasp.

I have to wonder if some preconceived conceptual mind frame has caused HJ to not pay attention... that might be just a bad habit rather than idiocy. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: