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
06-04-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 01:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 12:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  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?

Speaking of "demonstration" .... you forgot about demonstrating your god.
Oops. Troll. Double standard much.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-04-2013, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 01:41 PM by kim.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 12:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

Soooooo.... to "aim" this gun... which is for one particular otter: his(and only his) appetites both for yummy clams found in his personal secret, much colder water spot and girl otters with cute little white hairs around their eyes instead of the usual brown hairs the other boy otters favor... is NOT micromanaging?

I can make presumptions about my little otter population based on what I know about my one boy otter. Maybe my little otter's appetites will be the death of him. Or maybe he will be the first in a long line of otters who push further out into deeper, colder waters... it might also be a good idea to have lighter hairs around the eyes to deflect the sun while out on the glassier waves.

Maybe the other otters will pick up and move to warmer waters and away from this freak, even the cute little girl otters with the fuzzy white eye hairs. Our boy doesn't get laid and the others exhaust their food supply quickly because clams get sick in warmer waters and populations are sparse. No one knows what's beyond their little otter noses.

It's apparent your view is pre-subscribed to end up with something specific. Your view "puts the cart before the horse" as is the expression. Evolution has no "conclusion" so there is nothing to "aim" at. 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
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
06-04-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 01:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 12:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  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?


No, Dawkins didn't attempt it - you completely misunderstand the purpose of his example.

Many predictions have been made and verified using evolutionary theory, e.g. Tiktaalik roseae.

A very good experiment was done with bacteria: Lenski experiment

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
06-04-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 01:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 01:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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?

Speaking of "demonstration" .... you forgot about demonstrating your god.
Oops. Troll. Double standard much.

What does demonstrating God's existence have to with ID'st and Dawkins both being wrong?

I forgive you for calling me a troll.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 01:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 01:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Speaking of "demonstration" .... you forgot about demonstrating your god.
Oops. Troll. Double standard much.

What does demonstrating God's existence have to with ID'st and Dawkins both being wrong?

I forgive you for calling me a troll.

It has to do with justifying your beliefs, something you fail to do but expect from others. Hence double standard.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 02:06 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 06:59 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 01:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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?


What does demonstrating God's existence have to with ID'st and Dawkins both being wrong?

I forgive you for calling me a troll.

Are we suffering from Alzheimer's Disease today ? In the VERY LAST page YOU, I repeat YOU, demanded a demonstration.
Now you are asking what it has to do with anything.

I forgive you for forgiving me.

I repeat, demonstrate your God, which is YOUR stated standard, or go away.
Tongue

If Evolution were to have been designed, it's proof of nothing. A set of intelligent aliens, who were created by another set of aliens, back about 10 generations of more complex designers, could have set your Evolution model in motion. There is no way ''design" logically leads to god(s).

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-04-2013, 02:19 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Evolution has no "aim" other than local adaption for survival and even then, as much evidence gathered tells us, it can be quite simply, a crappy shot.

HJ - I personally do not give a shit what you or anyone believes - that's up to you - I could not give less of a shit.

However, you are missing a very important aspect in the explanation of what is known about the workings of evolution and this is the thing I have an issue with; the dissemination of incorrect information.

If someone asks you about evolution they will be getting incorrect information. Then, they come to me and expect me to answer for your mistaken and incorrect information. It is the equivalent of you putting a lie in my mouth which I will have to continually correct. (think of it as the evolution of your bullshit; one step forward, two steps back)

Some suspect you and many theists do this on purpose and out of spite.
It's possible theists feel atheists do the same thing with god stuff. However, god stuff is an individual, highly subjective experience. It has nothing to do with the real tangible world at large; it is faith and I think most theists will agree, faith does not require evidence whereas the real, tangible world does.

In order to prove itself, evolution requires evidence, something faith does not require. The two things need not have anything to do with each other. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
06-04-2013, 04:18 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
After watching the full video, the only thing they both have in common is a love for humanity. Wendy thinks that evolutionary biology will lead people to begin to think about survival of the fittest and base their beliefs off of that idea.

What she doesn't understand is that the evolutionary principles of co-operation easily account for the need to care for one another.





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
[+] 3 users Like fstratzero's post
07-04-2013, 12:25 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 01:43 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 01:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What does demonstrating God's existence have to with ID'st and Dawkins both being wrong?

I forgive you for calling me a troll.

It has to do with justifying your beliefs, something you fail to do but expect from others. Hence double standard.

On this topic I have justified my beliefs with exampes of convergent evolution, examples of the use of genetic algorithms to create specific things, and the article about long term evolution. I've justified my position in detail. I'm still waiting for you and others to justify yours. I'm sorry but you argument that I am wrong to question a statement by Richard Dawkins isn't compelling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 12:32 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 01:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 01:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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?


No, Dawkins didn't attempt it - you completely misunderstand the purpose of his example.

Many predictions have been made and verified using evolutionary theory, e.g. Tiktaalik roseae.

A very good experiment was done with bacteria: Lenski experiment

I talked about Lenski back in post 284. You can refer back to that post for my thoughts on his experiment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: