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
07-04-2013, 12:38 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 02:19 PM)kim Wrote:  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

Kim, if your opinion about evolution is wrong and mine is right, then it is I who is correcting your lies. You said a bunch of stuff there but nothing of substance. You didn't even make an attempt at a presuasive argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 12:46 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(06-04-2013 02:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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).

Please stop being obtuse, this thread is about errant claims made by Dawkins and ID'st. Its not about the existence of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 12:46 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 12:38 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 02:19 PM)kim Wrote:  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

Kim, if your opinion about evolution is wrong and mine is right, then it is I who is correcting your lies. You said a bunch of stuff there but nothing of substance. You didn't even make an attempt at a presuasive argument.

Mutations occur, sometimes beneficial, increasing survival and reproduction rate which increases gene frequency in that pool, sometimes harmful which decreases survival and reproduction rate.

Where do you see a non-blind process? Where is the guide?

Mutations occur, and environments change. Few species survive changes while most die off.
HOW is this not blind? Please clarify, without presupposing the existence of an intellect that you haven't given reason to believe exists.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
07-04-2013, 01:35 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 01:44 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 12:46 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(07-04-2013 12:38 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Kim, if your opinion about evolution is wrong and mine is right, then it is I who is correcting your lies. You said a bunch of stuff there but nothing of substance. You didn't even make an attempt at a presuasive argument.

Mutations occur, sometimes beneficial, increasing survival and reproduction rate which increases gene frequency in that pool, sometimes harmful which decreases survival and reproduction rate.

Where do you see a non-blind process? Where is the guide?

Mutations occur, and environments change. Few species survive changes while most die off.
HOW is this not blind? Please clarify, without presupposing the existence of an intellect that you haven't given reason to believe exists.

I already have, you will have to read the thread, but in summary:

Blind evolution is descent with change. But descent with change leads to no cumulative selection. In order to have cumulative selection as observed in natural evolution a fitness paradigm is required. That fitness paradigm is what guides evolution. Because evolution is guided by the fitness paradigm we can make very specific predictions, we observe the same form evolving independently multiple times, and we can use evolution to create things with specific characteristics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 01:38 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 01:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-04-2013 12:46 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Mutations occur, sometimes beneficial, increasing survival and reproduction rate which increases gene frequency in that pool, sometimes harmful which decreases survival and reproduction rate.

Where do you see a non-blind process? Where is the guide?

Mutations occur, and environments change. Few species survive changes while most die off.
HOW is this not blind? Please clarify, without presupposing the existence of an intellect that you haven't given reason to believe exists.

I already have, you will have to read the thread.

I have read the thread, and I see no evidence of a guide or of the non-blind nature of evolution. Try again. Fail again.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 02:39 AM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
You're still here arguing HJ?? Sigh. Do you really believe so strongly in your convictions? If so, then why are you here? I see you offering nothing new since the beginning of the thread. I commend you on consistency. But seriously, if you truly believe you've discovered something the scientific community has overlooked please take it up with them.

We've told you how we feel about your claims. We do not find your arguments compelling. Why are you still here arguing the exact same points?

Have you written any of your hypothesis down (other than here)? Have you presented to anyone else other than us here?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
07-04-2013, 03:40 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 03:53 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 02:39 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  You're still here arguing HJ?? Sigh. Do you really believe so strongly in your convictions? If so, then why are you here? I see you offering nothing new since the beginning of the thread. I commend you on consistency. But seriously, if you truly believe you've discovered something the scientific community has overlooked please take it up with them.

We've told you how we feel about your claims. We do not find your arguments compelling. Why are you still here arguing the exact same points?

Have you written any of your hypothesis down (other than here)? Have you presented to anyone else other than us here?

I was content in letting this thread die, but that article was just more evidence to substantiate my position.....so I bumped it. I see tons of evidence for my position but claims like the one made by Dawkins come up flat and insupportable when you actually look at evidence for them. Do you really think Dawkins would have to cheat if there was substantial evidence for his claim?

Now I understand your position as well, you claim cumulative selection would occur exactly the same if the fitness paradigm was not designed. Let's assume that is true.

Premise: Cumulative selection would occur if the fitness paradigm was not designed.
Conclusion: Therefore natural evolution is blind, it has no goals, it doesn't home in on targets.

The conclusion isn't supported by the premise. Even if the premise is true an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system with the goal of producing human beings. The conclusion is contradicted by convergent evolution, by the predictability of evolutionary processes, and by the fact that intellects exploit/use evolution to achieve specific desired results. The premise has never been demonstrated to be true....it is an assertion at best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 06:07 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-04-2013 02:39 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  You're still here arguing HJ?? Sigh. Do you really believe so strongly in your convictions? If so, then why are you here? I see you offering nothing new since the beginning of the thread. I commend you on consistency. But seriously, if you truly believe you've discovered something the scientific community has overlooked please take it up with them.

We've told you how we feel about your claims. We do not find your arguments compelling. Why are you still here arguing the exact same points?

Have you written any of your hypothesis down (other than here)? Have you presented to anyone else other than us here?

I was content in letting this thread die, but that article was just more evidence to substantiate my position.....so I bumped it. I see tons of evidence for my position but claims like the one made by Dawkins come up flat and insupportable when you actually look at evidence for them. Do you really think Dawkins would have to cheat if there was substantial evidence for his claim?

Now I understand your position as well, you claim cumulative selection would occur exactly the same if the fitness paradigm was not designed. Let's assume that is true.

Premise: Cumulative selection would occur if the fitness paradigm was not designed.
Conclusion: Therefore natural evolution is blind, it has no goals, it doesn't home in on targets.

The conclusion isn't supported by the premise. Even if the premise is true an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system with the goal of producing human beings. The conclusion is contradicted by convergent evolution, by the predictability of evolutionary processes, and by the fact that intellects exploit/use evolution to achieve specific desired results. The premise has never been demonstrated to be true....it is an assertion at best.

You continue to misunderstand Dawkins' examples. His examples are not examples of evolution, they are simplified demonstrations of mechanisms to aid the readers' understanding of those mechanisms.

Convergent evolution does not support your position. Organisms arrive at similar forms and functions in similar environments. That supports the purely mechanistic nature of adaptation.

The fact that intellects can use evolutionary mechanisms in no way supports the idea that those mechanisms require intellect. I can use the sun to heat water - that doesn't mean either the sun or the heating of water require intellect.

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
07-04-2013, 07:36 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 08:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 12:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 01:43 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  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.

Yes, and you ignored all the counter arguments for divergent Evolution. In fact your first post was actually incorrect. Not one person here thought you had a convincing argument. You have no evidence for your position, and in fact the process of convergence is perfectly explained without invoking your crap. You may *think* you justified your position. In fact no one here agree with it. No one. Not one person.

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
07-04-2013, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 08:21 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Can we quit it with the "troll" bullshit? I haven't seen a clear troll from HJ since the first week he joined here. Would you quit the ad hominem and perhaps focus on identifying and addressing areas of agreement and disagreement?

HJ, I'm having trouble understanding what is being argued here as I think neither side as stated their arguing points clearly in the last several pages at least. It seems both sides understand (rhetoric aside) that evolution is the accumulation of diversity over successive generations that is shaped by a selection process (natural selection). The selection process acts as a filter that extracts information from the underlying "noise" in the same way that a screen printer does - but excluding poor environmental fit and accepting good environmental fit. We see mutation, accumulation of diversity, natural selection, and speciation in our current day environment at rates consistent with those required to produce the current diversity of species over the timeframes we understand this diversification to have occurred. We also have morphological and genetic evidence that points strongly to a single common ancestor to life on earth. Convergent evolution occurs when the environment of two species is similar and force similar traits on unrelated species, for example the torpedo shape required to move quickly in water is common to both Cephalopoda and Osteichthyes.

Are you in agreement with all of the above, and if not - what do you agree with versus what you do not agree with?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: