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, 09:58 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 08:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Can we quit it with the "troll" bullshit?

Can we? Yes we can!

Will we? Hell, no. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 08:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not ""guided" by anything. The selection pressure PRODUCES results whch are SUITED to an environment. One is passive, one is active. You are imposing an "anthropomorphic" view, ("guided"), onto a blind process. You would have to assert that the environment was a "set up" in order for you to make your assertion. There is no evidence environmernts are "set up" to produce a selective result. You have just pushed back ID one step, with NO evidence. Fail. Try harder.
There's a lot of contradiction in your post. You say its not guided by anything but produces suited results. A "guide" is something which serves to direct or indicate. The selection pressure serves to direct evolution to produce organisms which are suited to the environment.
You who are anthropomorphizing becuase You are assuming "guide" necessitates an intellect. I haven't made that argument. I made the argument that if God does exist all He would have to do is manipulate/manufacture the selection pressure to achieve His desired results.

I see no contradiction.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 11:35 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 02:35 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 08:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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?

When a person still persists in their ignorant position nearly 400 posts later, one is justified in assuming the person is a troll. Haywould Youblowme is evidently not going to sway their position in the face of mounds of counter evidence, so what is the problem in calling him out for what he is? A troll.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
07-04-2013, 12:01 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(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.

This has nothing to do with opinion, it has to do with basic known information and the repeated, ongoing observations of evolution.

(07-04-2013 12:38 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You said a bunch of stuff there but nothing of substance. You didn't even make an attempt at a presuasive argument.

Evidently you also missed or avoided this previously posted:
(06-04-2013 01:24 PM)kim Wrote:  
(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

I see you've just been circling back to that lame "fitness paradigm" crap. Oh well. Drinking Beverage

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
07-04-2013, 12:32 PM
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, 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.

We've already concluded that 'fitness paradigm' is your way of trying to be fancy, and actually just means 'environment', so why keep using it? Makes you look desperate to look clever. The genetic -> phenotype and memetic changes that suit the environment will thrive and live on, the others do not. Just because we can throw some bacteria in a acid dish, and conclude that some strains will become resistant to the acid your saying it's guided. Well what survives is because of a mix between genetics, memetics (maybe not for bacteria) and environment. If you want to say these three things guide evolution, go for it. But that's not what a guide is, those are simply the variables that change.

If you have a planet in the goldilocks zone with water and carbon dioxide you expect to see life appear that can deal with that environment, that is if life appears at all. When it changes, say when the accumulation of life convert sufficient CO2 into Oxygen, we can expect to see life that takes advantage of oxygen. Life forms around it's environment. Does that make the environment the guide in your opinion?

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, 12:41 PM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 12:48 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

Your assuming it IS designed. Something you have no evidence for. Your conclusion is contradicted by divergent evolution, something that occurs umpteen times as often as convergent evolution. So if something is predictable as opposed to random it must have been created or designed by an intelligence?

I predict water boils (Thanks Chas), does that make the ability of water to change it's state from liquid to gas something that was designed by an intellect?

I predict if I drop a stone from a meter above the ground, it will fall to the ground. Does that mean gravity must have been designed by an intellect?

You could say evolution is guided by mutations and environment, but it's still blind to the future. Unless you suspect molecules are cognizant minds that see the future, and do you have any reason to believe that? No.

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, 01:00 PM
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.

[Image: 9227d1359569341-another-dead-horse-thread-deadhorse.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
07-04-2013, 08:41 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
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.

Evolution is also divergent. Some examples of convergent evolution prove nothing about a (designed) "fitness paradugm" In fact the premise has been demonstrated countless time. It's a passive/reactive process. The environment was not designed. By Evolution, organisms react to their environment. There is not a shred of evidence that the environment is designed. The mutiple examples of diverse environments, and multiple extinction events prove it so. So, BlowJob, show us, (other than your bullshit conjecture), where EXACTLY is the evidence for a designed environment, and explain the countless environmental iterations.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 12:26 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2013 01:46 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 08:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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?

Regarding the bolded part, I was surprised by how many atheist here objected to including what you said in a definition of evolution....see my defining evolution thread.

I don't have a problem with anything you wrote there.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 12:36 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(07-04-2013 12:32 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(07-04-2013 01:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

We've already concluded that 'fitness paradigm' is your way of trying to be fancy, and actually just means 'environment', so why keep using it? Makes you look desperate to look clever. The genetic -> phenotype and memetic changes that suit the environment will thrive and live on, the others do not. Just because we can throw some bacteria in a acid dish, and conclude that some strains will become resistant to the acid your saying it's guided. Well what survives is because of a mix between genetics, memetics (maybe not for bacteria) and environment. If you want to say these three things guide evolution, go for it. But that's not what a guide is, those are simply the variables that change.

If you have a planet in the goldilocks zone with water and carbon dioxide you expect to see life appear that can deal with that environment, that is if life appears at all. When it changes, say when the accumulation of life convert sufficient CO2 into Oxygen, we can expect to see life that takes advantage of oxygen. Life forms around it's environment. Does that make the environment the guide in your opinion?



I use the term "fitness paradigm" because not all evolution is biological. In natural evolution the environment is the fitness paradigm. In computer simulation of evolution the fitness function is the fitness paradigm. In memetic evolution the fitness paradigm could be utility.

Fitness paradigm is just a phrase I coined to label all those things which drive selection in evolutionary processes.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: