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, 12:48 PM
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 forgive you for calling me an idiot

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 09:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 08:57 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

I see you found the portion of vid where Dawkins claims his computer program looks into the future.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 01:58 PM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 12:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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 forgive you for calling me an idiot

I feel you devalue this phrase with each repetition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Cardinal Smurf's post
16-03-2013, 04:16 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2013 04:35 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 12:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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 forgive you for calling me an idiot

I don't forgive you for being one. Weeping
There is no excuse for being as stupid as you have proven to be. You said you came here to challenge us, yet have never once even begun to.
I realize you religious types feel the need to tell yourselves you are morally superior, (thus this "forgiveness" crap) but actually your self-righteousness is very tiresome, and quite meaningless. It's an attempted deflection from the fact that you have never addressed the points aimed in your direction. There is no forgiveness for that, or the fact that with no expertise in the field, you are so arrogant as to think you were up to challenging an expert in the field in which you have no knowledge, or thinking you had some special insight with which to challenge the way people thought. There is no excuse or forgiveness for being an arrogant fool.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-03-2013, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2013 05:25 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 12:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 09:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

I see you found the portion of vid where Dawkins claims his computer program looks into the future.
It's a genetic algorithm. A computer program with a goal in mind, that is what he means by looking into the future, that the genetic algorithm has to match the sentence.

In the wild organisms simply reproduce, and die. What ever the environment happens to be or change into forces the organisms to change with the environment. Provided that change is slow enough for the organisms to change with it.

The second video shows how manipulating the environment changes a creature in a computer program. I wish the site was still up so you could play with it. That program makes evolution a lot easier to understand.









I did find a new simulator to play with

http://www.speciesgame.com/



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like fstratzero's post
17-03-2013, 12:29 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 01:58 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 12:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I forgive you for calling me an idiot

I feel you devalue this phrase with each repetition.

I find I am less bothered by insults the more I repeat it.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 05:34 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(17-03-2013 12:29 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 01:58 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I feel you devalue this phrase with each repetition.

I find I am less bothered by insults the more I repeat it.


And I am less convinced by his logical fallacies the more he repeats them...

Oh wait, they were never compelling in the first place... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
06-04-2013, 12:05 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(16-03-2013 04:56 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  It's a genetic algorithm. A computer program with a goal in mind, that is what he means by looking into the future, that the genetic algorithm has to match the sentence.

In the wild organisms simply reproduce, and die. What ever the environment happens to be or change into forces the organisms to change with the environment. Provided that change is slow enough for the organisms to change with it.

I believe Fullcircle provided this link in another thread. I am posting it here because it seems relavent to this conversation.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-long-term-e...y.html#jCp

I believe that the article backs up my view that evolution isn't blind to the future. That it is predictable and takes certain trajectories. That God would need not to micromanage mutations as suggested by ID'st but rather He would just have to "aim the gun" and evolution would hit a desired target.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 12:13 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 12:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 04:56 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  It's a genetic algorithm. A computer program with a goal in mind, that is what he means by looking into the future, that the genetic algorithm has to match the sentence.

In the wild organisms simply reproduce, and die. What ever the environment happens to be or change into forces the organisms to change with the environment. Provided that change is slow enough for the organisms to change with it.

I believe Fullcircle provided this link in another thread. I am posting it here because it seems relavent to this conversation.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-long-term-e...y.html#jCp

I believe that the article backs up my view that evolution isn't blind to the future. That it is predictable and takes certain trajectories. That God would need not to micromanage mutations as suggested by ID'st but rather He would just have to "aim the gun" and evolution would hit a desired target.

No, it does not back up your view.

It is a very narrow experiment involving a tiny subset of proteins, and an invented definition of fitness.

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
06-04-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 12:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 12:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I believe Fullcircle provided this link in another thread. I am posting it here because it seems relavent to this conversation.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-long-term-e...y.html#jCp

I believe that the article backs up my view that evolution isn't blind to the future. That it is predictable and takes certain trajectories. That God would need not to micromanage mutations as suggested by ID'st but rather He would just have to "aim the gun" and evolution would hit a desired target.

No, it does not back up your view.

It is a very narrow experiment involving a tiny subset of proteins, and an invented definition of fitness.

All evolutionary experiments involve a small subset and defined fitness.

Maybe you can produce something like an experiment that substantiates your view....Dawkins tried in the blind watch maker but admitted he had to cheat. Therefore his argument amounted to an unsubstantiated opinion. If he is right, he should be able to demonstrate it....but he admits he can't....so why should I favor his opinion over experiments like the one in the article?

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: