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
28-02-2013, 11:04 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 10:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 10:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't want to get into my background because it is a red herring.

Evolution is a process whereby small changes in the heritiable
characteristics of a population accumulate thru a selective filter over successive
generations. The accumulation of these changes ultimately result in significant increase in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge.

Did I pass? Am I worthy enough to discuss evolution with all you super smartie pant atheists?

Now it is your turn Phaedrus, in your own words please tell us what heritiable characteristics are, as it was taught to you, in 100 words or so.
It isn't a red herring because an understanding beyond just definitions of concepts may help explain how there is a large difference in how people can view the term "guide" in different ways in the sense of evolution.


People here don't like the word "guide" because they think it necessarily implies the existence of an intellect. It doesn't. A guide can be smart or it can be dumb.

My point in this thread is that evolution(and here I am talking about more than just biological evolution) is guided by a fitness paradigm or function. Without some sort of fitness paradigm you can't have evolution. It is this fitness paradigm which ultimately determines the forms evolution produces....not blind chance as suggested by Dawkins and not manipulated mutations as suggested by some IDers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:10 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Orgel's Second Rule

"Evolution is cleverer than you are"

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:10 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 11:14 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 10:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't want to get into my background because it is a red herring.

Meaning your avoiding answering because you have no background in the field. If you can't be honest, why should we even bother reading what you have to say?

(28-02-2013 10:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Evolution is a process whereby small changes in the heritiable
characteristics of a population accumulate thru a selective filter over successive
generations. (Directly from the first blip in wiki) The accumulation of these changes ultimately result in significant increase in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge.

Did I pass? Am I worthy enough to discuss evolution with all you super smartie pant atheists?

We aren't wondering if you can quote things, were curious if you understand evolution. Based on the replies you have given I am questioning if you understand it at all, especially since you avoid answering what background you have in the field.

(28-02-2013 11:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  People here don't like the word "guide" because they think it necessarily implies the existence of an intellect. It doesn't. A guide can be smart or it can be dumb.

My point in this thread is that evolution(and here I am talking about more than just biological evolution) is guided by a fitness paradigm or function. Without some sort of fitness paradigm you can't have evolution. It is this fitness paradigm which ultimately determines the forms evolution produces....not blind chance as suggested by Dawkins and not manipulated mutations as suggested by some IDers.

We don't like the word guide because it is not an accurate word to describe the key process of evolution; natural selection. No one that understands evolution claims that the outcome is determined by blind change. You just love giving reasons for us to doubt what you have to say it seems.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:22 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 11:10 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Meaning your avoiding answering because you have no background in the field. If you can't be honest, why should we even bother reading what you have to say?

We aren't wondering if you can quote things, were curious if you understand evolution. Based on the replies you have given I am questioning if you understand it at all, especially since you avoid answering what background you have in the field.

Your right from the start(remember the neg rep) ad hominem strategy isn't very persuasive.

(28-02-2013 11:10 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  We don't like the word guide because it is not an accurate word to describe the key process of evolution; natural selection. No one that understands evolution claims that the outcome is determined by blind change. You just love giving reasons for us to doubt what you have to say it seems.


You should watch the video again because Dawkins says evolution is blind....which isn't entirely accurate and is certainly as prejudcial as "guide". I'll be honest, if I had known the word "guide" would raise your guy's hackles so much, I would have looked for an alternative word.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Blind != Blind Chance

Is this what we are to expect from you? Mis-quotes and misunderstandings of the theory?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:29 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Let me see if I understand Heywood's Hypothesis: He's abandoning the typical ID argument that a creator directly designed us and instead suggesting that what this creator has done is guide 3.6 billion years of plate tectonics, meteors, gravitational fluctuations, climate changes etc to have as an end product in evolution Homo sapiens?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:32 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 11:26 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Blind != Blind Chance

So we are in agreement then that products of evolution are shaped by selective pressure, that it is not a blind process as suggested by Dawkins.

Yes or No.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:37 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 11:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So we are in agreement then that products of evolution are shaped by selective pressure, that it is not a blind process as suggested by Dawkins.

Yes or No.

!= means: does not equal.

If this conversation is to continue I expect you to cut the dishonesty.

The products of evolution are shaped by selection pressures. Sure. Now what?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 11:40 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 11:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Nope. The entire thread is based on the fallcy of composition, AND begs the question "fitness for WHAT" ?
There is no answer to the "for what" question. I can give you countless example of UNfitness, yet survival. It's just another deluded person with delusions of grandeur, who thinks he's come up with something EVERYONE ELSE in the entire world never noticed, and he's EVER SO SPECIAL.

He has the Egor gene. (Its not a gene that promotes survival. It will die a slow and painful death).

Evolution happens because organisms face enviromental challenges, and the ones that can adapt the best, survive. All it means is they survive, NOT that they are the BEST at anything, or designed for anything, (including "fitness", whatever that is, which was never defined). I could "design" a much better primate than we are. It's anthropomorphic projection on a system that is in no way "guided", eith on the front end, OR the back end. The environment was not designed.

And BTW, the original example with Gray Wolf skull and Tasmanian Wolf is meaningless, as they obviously had a common ancestor.
If THAT was "designed for" something, why did it evolve further ?

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
28-02-2013, 11:44 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 11:29 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Let me see if I understand Heywood's Hypothesis: He's abandoning the typical ID argument that a creator directly designed us and instead suggesting that what this creator has done is guide 3.6 billion years of plate tectonics, meteors, gravitational fluctuations, climate changes etc to have as an end product in evolution Homo sapiens?

I have not made an argument that God used evolution to produce human beings. I am making an argument that evolution is not blind, that it is guided by a fitness paradigm(my own term but you can substitute selection pressures if you like). I am arguing that it is possible to design an evolutionary system to produce a desired end result simply by manipulating the fitness paradigm.

Watch this video of a computer program which evolves a face.




Why is a human face evolved and not a cows face or a pigs face? Because the writer of the program constructed the fitness paradigm so narrowly that only a human face would emerge. Evolution is a powerful creative process that can produce just about anything.

The argument that evolution is likely the result of an intellect is another argument(and another thread) entirely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: