Intelligent design's predictions

[articulett]

Dawkins from the Blind Watchmaker:

Nowadays theologians aren't quite so straightforward as Paley. They don't point to complex living mechanisms and say that they are self-evidently designed by a creator, just like a watch. But there is a tendency to point to them and say 'It is impossible to believe' that such complexity, or such perfection, could have evolved by natural selection. Whenever I read such a remark, I always feel like writing 'Speak for yourself' in the margin.

...There are two things wrong with the argument put by Raven. First, there is the familiar, and I have to say rather irritating, confusion of natural selection with 'randomness'. Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random. Second, it just isn't true that 'each by itself is useless'. It isn't true that the whole perfect work must have been achieved simultaneously. It isn't true that each part is essential for the success of the whole.

 

[articulett]

Why don't you actually answer the question and address the content of the quotes instead of being childish?

Ah yes... because you have shown yourself to be so capable of mature conversation and back and forth dialogue. It's hard to discuss things when someone never really actually makes a point, you know.

Some people are much more fun to talk about than talk to.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Dawkins from the Blind Watchmaker:

Congratulations, you got the quote right.

My point stands, arrogant content-free verbosity notwithstanding. .

 

[mijopaalmc]

Ah yes... because you have shown yourself to be so capable of mature conversation and back and forth dialogue. It's hard to discuss things when someone never really actually makes a point, you know.

Some people are much more fun to talk about than talk to.

Hmmmm...I don't ever call names unless it is true, which is the case with your persistent lie about my being a creationist. You have never made any effort to explain why you don't understand what I'm saying. You just assume because I say evolution is random/a stochastic process that I am a creationist

 

[quixotecoyote]

Expanding on what I said before, the definition captures exactly what is wrong with the 747 analogy, captures the essence of evolution (random happenings according to set probabilities) and is understandable by many.

The essence of evolution is probabilistic interactions in the environment to determine what information is replicated and passed on. Agreed?

 

[articulett]

It's quite simple: because calling evolution by natural selection a stochastic process is correct.



I'm sorry, for someone who is so concerned with the correct description of evolution, you couldn't be more wrong. Natural selection does not guarantee increased complexity; it guarantees increased adaptation to an ecological niche. If the niche requires less complexity (another one of your hand-wavy terms) then the organism will be less complex; if the niche requires more complexity, the organism will be more complex.

Wrong again... but of course there is no unit for measuring complexity... but natural selection guarantees incremental evolution or the info. dies out.... technology continues to go "forward" and information systems including genomes become increasingly complex... of course this is the basis of the selfish gene... and memes and other other info codes that can get themselves replicated. It's your lack of understanding which makes it so that you cannot compute this. When it come to information-- it's forward (towards better information storers, assimilaters, recombiners, and replicators) or it dies out... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html
(a clue for you )

And you are not sorry... you are just wrong... yet again. Once again you put down those who might educate you. What do you suppose these guys are saying? And why do you think you are so much more informative when nobody else thinks so?
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/Pagel.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/Tooby.html

You know how the internet must grow in complexity... it can branch out and evolve, but the only path is forward. Successful links beget a plethora of increasingly efficient links--information assimilators, copiers, storers, etc. It's your failure to understand natural selection and your hyperfocus on randomness that keeps you clueless about this very amazing tidbit.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Of course evolution will lead to greater complexity. If you define complexity as what evolution leads to .

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's quite simple: because calling evolution by natural selection a stochastic process is correct.

My thoughts exactly. Mijo, I wish more people would stick to math instead of endless articullations.

If others haven't seen it yet, check out http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm

RE: the iteration that was presented that had a random seed then converged to sqrt(2). I thought I covered examples like these nicely with talking about 'trivial functions', for example f(rand) = 1+rand^0. I mean, at least the iteration presented was random at first, but then it apparently is sqrt(2) forever and after a certain time t fails to 'evolve' at all. Sorry, that's not how evolution works, even for these toy models we are discussing. A model would have to be capable of producing change between any time t and t+1. And this especially applies when we are talking about change over billions of years.

My note at the bottom of my page covers the reason why a constant function (which the iteration example essentially is after a very few steps) cannot work, cannot even be considered, for a model of evolution.

 

[articulett]

Expanding on what I said before, the definition captures exactly what is wrong with the 747 analogy, captures the essence of evolution (random happenings according to set probabilities) and is understandable by many.

The essence of evolution is probabilistic interactions in the environment to determine what information is replicated and passed on. Agreed?

No, I don't agree. I think you sound muddled. I think that like Mijo you think you understand evolution although no one else would agree. I don't think you could convey how the design comes from evolution any better than Mijo, Jimbob, or Behe. I think this is because you don't understand the process, but you are certain you do. But I'm sure you and Mijo can have a scintillating conversation about how you are so much clearer than Dawkins and the many biologists who most emphatically state that natural selection is not random... and it's absolutely confusing and misleading to focus on the randomness rather than natural selection when trying to convey the simple elegance of evolution.

I'd say that evolution is driven by information that gets itself copied-- and this information is honed over time by environmental inputs of multiple sorts-- including things mijo wants to call random like meteors-- meteors and everything in an environment are selectors... randomness only refers to the changes which may or may not be selected.

How does your garbled explanation apply to this? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274/ Creationist would see it as if somebody purposely tweaked the butterfly genome. But Dawkins and others would point out that the mutation had a trick for getting itself copied. It gave it's replicator a survival advantage and so the mutation got itself copied widely. It look miraculous-- but only if you don't understand natural selection. And your garbled probability blather doesn't convey that understanding. Neither does anything Behe or Mijo says. If you can't be as clear as an MSNBC article, then you ought to shut up and learn more before insulting others and assuming you have something to teach.

If you think Dawkins is being misleading... you might want to consider the fact that maybe it's your lack of understanding that is making you assume as much. That's what it looks like to the rest of us.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Actually I agree that this isn't the clearest way to educate someone completely ignorant on the topic, which may be the reason I'm not getting through to you, I don't know.

It is interesting that you'd make that claim and still post:

The analogy captures exactly what is wrong with the 747 analogy, captures the essence of evolution (bottom up seeming "design") and is understandable by many.

The essence of evolution is information creating objects (life forms or otherwise) that interact in the environment to determine what information is replicated and passed on. Agreed?

In order to defend using intelligent design to explain evolution. Not like that might lead to some confusion or anything.

 

[articulett]

Of course evolution will lead to greater complexity. If you define complexity as what evolution leads to .

I have no problem understanding the experts and those who teach many. I provided links which said is much. I'm not the one claiming Dawkins is misleading while pretending to have expertise in something no one else seems to think I have expertise in.

Let's see... Dawkins has conveyed an understanding of evolution to many. You have conveyed it to no one... and yet you think you are informative and that Dawkins is misleading. Interesting bit of hubris. But-- Tai' agrees with you-- and Behe. And Mijo. So you are in excellent company. In fact I bet all of you think you understand more about evolution than Dawkins-- and can explain it better. I bet you all think you can explain it better than each other too. I haven't said anything about evolution or complexity that isn't backed up by strong resources... and you guys have... well ... behe... and a couple of old articles that aren't really describing evolution nor are they saying what you are saying-- but hey, when you have so much faith in your own knowledge-- who needs facts.

(You can't learn anything when you think you are smarter than the experts, ya' know...)

Maybe it's not Dawkins that is unclear... maybe it's not me you should be rolling your eyes at... maybe it's time to examine your own education on the subject. Maybe you just don't know quite as much as you think.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Apparently you have a problem understand the role in randomness in evolution, as you refuse to admit it plays a part. You've staked your position and will defend it to the death with a Larenesque tenacity. Amusing, but not particularly inspiring.

You misrepresent Dawkins as saying that there is no probability in evolution.
You misrepresent Mijo as a creationist.
You continually deny sources that disagree with you without saying why they are wrong, you just say 'That doesn't say what you think it says'.
You equivocate about whether evolution is random or not, sometimes agreeing that it technically is, other times vehemently denying it.

Perhaps you should reconsider debating from that high horse of yours and actually consider the arguments presented.

 

[articulett]

Actually I agree that this isn't the clearest way to educate someone completely ignorant on the topic, which may be the reason I'm not getting through to you, I don't know.

It is interesting that you'd make that claim and still post:

In order to defend using intelligent design to explain evolution. Not like that might lead to some confusion or anything.

wrong... I defended the analogy of airplane design information evolving incrementally just like genomic information-- I am more than explanatory on that thread. And the majority of the people understood me just fine. Moreover, I provided multiple links. The confusion is yours. And the confusion, once again, comes from your thinking you understand natural selection-- when you do not. At least not any better than Mijo.

In fact, I pointed out that 747 did not evolve randomly-- they evolved much like species evolve over time based on replication of information that worked. Eohippus did not turn into zebras and horses-- the information that made zebras and horses evolved from the information that made their common ancestor--and that information was refined and honed via the organisms it coded for over time. The first airplaine did not evolve into the airplanes of today... but the information in it's blueprint was widely copied and modified and selected by the environment of humans via the airplanes built over time.

If you can't understand the analogy... it's because you don't understand natural selection. It's not me. It's not Dawkins. It's not everyone else. When the only people on your side are people known not to be particularly informed on the topic-- then maybe, just maybe, it's time to wonder if the lack of understanding is YOU.

(Maybe the people you insult are the people who could give you a clue if you weren't so damn sure you knew it all already.)

 

[quixotecoyote]

wrong... I defended the analogy of airplane design information evolving incrementally just like genomic information-- I am more than explanatory on that thread. And the majority of the people understood me just fine. Moreover, I provided multiple links. The confusion is yours. And the confusion, once again, comes from your thinking you understand natural selection-- when you do not. At least not any better than Mijo.

In fact, I pointed out that 747 did not evolve randomly-- they evolved much like species evolve over time based on replication of information that worked. Eohippus did not turn into zebras and horses-- the information that made zebras and horses evolved from the information that made their common ancestor--and that information was refined and honed via the organisms it coded for over time. The first airplaine did not evolve into the airplanes of today... but the information in it's blueprint was widely copied and modified and selected by the environment of humans via the airplanes built over time.

Yes I am aware you promote similar misunderstanding on both threads, that isn't the point. The point was that you're unwilling to accept technically correct but possibly confusing formulations in this thread, but are happy to promote a formulation on the other thread that is almost exactly the actual argument creationists use.

If you can't understand the analogy... it's because you don't understand natural selection. It's not me. It's not Dawkins. It's not everyone else. When the only people on your side are people known not to be particularly informed on the topic-- then maybe, just maybe, it's time to wonder if the lack of understanding is YOU.

(Maybe the people you insult are the people who could give you a clue if you weren't so damn sure you knew it all already.)

 

[articulett]

Apparently you have a problem understand the role in randomness in evolution, as you refuse to admit it plays a part. You've staked your position and will defend it to the death with a Larenesque tenacity. Amusing, but not particularly inspiring.

You misrepresent Dawkins as saying that there is no probability in evolution.
You misrepresent Mijo as a creationist.
You continually deny sources that disagree with you without saying why they are wrong, you just say 'That doesn't say what you think it says'.
You equivocate about whether evolution is random or not, sometimes agreeing that it technically is, other times vehemently denying it.

Perhaps you should reconsider debating from that high horse of yours and actually consider the arguments presented.

Who doesn't understand the randomness? And I suppose Dawkins doesn't understand it either while you do. I don't equivocate, you nutter. The term is misleading . I'd use it to refer to mutation but not to selection-- like all the intelligent people do. I wouldn't sum up evolution as random or be obsessed with describing it that way because that's what Behe, Tai' and others of that ilk do.

What arguments presented. You guys never say anything. You don't understand the very basics of that which you imagine yourself experts in. If you think you are experts... go find someone who actually thinks you are conveying evolution in a "fruitful" useful way. That isn't me. That sure wouldn't be Dawkins. So far you have Tai' and Behe on your side. I would think that if it was so fruitful and explanatory then those who described it so muddled would be selling books like Dawkins, et. al. And respected on this forum like those whom others actually seek for explanation on the subject.

What's there to debate? You have to say something and make a point to debate it. You have to understand the subject you are pretending to have expertise in. Find someone respectable that can translate what you say--someone who thinks you actually understand natural selection and are conveying it better than Behe-- anyone...

Otherwise, it's just like woo. You believe you understand natural selection and that you have some expertise and that what you have to say on the subject is useful or illuminating... but no one else does. And you aren't saying the same thing as each other. You are, however, saying stuff indistinguishible from the stuff that Behe says or Tai' says. And the point of debating Behe and Tai would be what exactly? What are you saying that is more worth "debating" than them.

 

[articulett]

Yes I am aware you promote similar misunderstanding on both threads, that isn't the point. The point was that you're unwilling to accept technically correct but possibly confusing formulations in this thread, but are happy to promote a formulation on the other thread that is almost exactly the actual argument creationists use.

Excellent. I do consider my sources. So that's you, Mijo, and Tai'. And you know how fabulous and important I think your conclusions are. (About as important as everyone else thinks they are. )

What's your point exactly. Ah... so you think you do understand natural selection. Based on what exactly? Your inability to understand Southwind's analogy? Or was it your conclusion that Dawkins is being misleading while Behe's calling evolution random is not? Was it your failure to read and understand any current writings on the subject... any expert... was it the fact that you considered yourself more knowledgeable than all the various people who have stopped by threads to correct you... or let you know that they weren't on the same page as you... Have you read the Selfish Gene? Darwin? Matt Ridley? Anyone current? Talk origins? Or is it just something about your ego which makes you certain that you know everything there is to know on the topic?

 

[articulett]

Yes I am aware you promote similar misunderstanding on both threads, that isn't the point. The point was that you're unwilling to accept technically correct but possibly confusing formulations in this thread, but are happy to promote a formulation on the other thread that is almost exactly the actual argument creationists use.

Wrong. Another supposed expert on what creationists use who hasn't a clue as to what creationist use. Furthermore, Mijo is not even "technically correct". There is no peer reviewed paper defining random quite as loosely as he is... moreover, there is no papers that call natural selection random-- though he does everything in his power like Behe to pretend that they are. Who cares if I accept it. I'm just pointing out that it's not useful and it's confusing. So why would anyone insist on using it. It conveys no information. And it misleads people about the most important aspect of evolution... the part that you don't understand-- natural selection. It doesn't convey what natural selection is...how it leads to the appearance of design.

Almost everything about creationist obfuscation is contained in that Dawkins quote-- and it's all about the randomness... because randomness can be extrapolated to the torando/747. But that is a strawman-- and that strawman is undone... because even the 747 didn't poof into being... it was the result of a lot of trial and error and replications of designs that worked tweaked through time.

I mean, your point of view might be worth considering if the only people making the same argument weren't a smattering of nutters like Mijo, Behe, and Tai. Right? Have you got anyone respectable on your side. We haver a whole forum of people educated about evolution. None of them sound quite like you. But Tai does.

And I find your insults of me flattering... because you have also insulted Dawkins... and many other people I find informative while acting as a cheerleader for a view espoused by Tai', Mijo, and Behe.

 

[articulett]

Apparently you have a problem understand the role in randomness in evolution, as you refuse to admit it plays a part. You've staked your position and will defend it to the death with a Larenesque tenacity. Amusing, but not particularly inspiring.

You misrepresent Dawkins as saying that there is no probability in evolution.
You misrepresent Mijo as a creationist.
You continually deny sources that disagree with you without saying why they are wrong, you just say 'That doesn't say what you think it says'.
You equivocate about whether evolution is random or not, sometimes agreeing that it technically is, other times vehemently denying it.

Perhaps you should reconsider debating from that high horse of yours and actually consider the arguments presented.

Now that's irony. I think it's clear who is on a high horse.

I do not misrepresent Dawkins. Mijo is indistinguishible from Behe in his banter (QED) and if someone else can translate you it would help... because it's like the gish gallop-- you throw out thing after thing and keep changing the points and attacking me and challenging me. Or maybe you can find someone reputable who agrees with you. Someone who finds you a good debater or knowledgeable on this topic. Because I feel like I'm having a conversation with Tai'-- and really, what's the point in that? If you can't distinguish yourself and your claims from known woo-- well then--

to me you ARE woo... or maybe just immature... until the evidence shows otherwise. I mean it's kinda fun to get you all riled up. But it's pointless. Woo don't learn and they can't see where they are lacking. Plus there's a whole forum of smart people I can learn from and teach and engage and enjoy. When I talk about my passion and area of training and expertise... I kind of like to have someone who has read the basics and understand a little and actually wants to know more-- just like I want to know more. And fortunately, I know the places to go for that information. And it sure and the heck isn't T'ai, Behe, Mijo, or you.

 

[quixotecoyote]

<reading #155> Insults, arrogance, pretension..... There has to be content in here somewhere, darn it!



Wait, I think I found some!

Otherwise, it's just like woo. You believe you understand natural selection and that you have some expertise and that what you have to say on the subject is useful or illuminating... but no one else does. And you aren't saying the same thing as each other. You are, however, saying stuff indistinguishible from the stuff that Behe says or Tai' says. And the point of debating Behe and Tai would be what exactly? What are you saying that is more worth "debating" than them.

Nope, more insults and an appeal to popularity.

Let's look closer, there must be SOME redeeming value in here somewhere, right?

No that was the end of the post.

Oh well <sigh>

There's 30 seconds and a few dozen words I'll never get back.

Anyway, given the lack of actual content to argue against, I'll expand my own point.



Dawkins once said that it's hard for people to imagine how random mutations can give rise to speciation. He likened to a gibberish string of characters, changing at random turning into the Shakespearian phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" from. Now I doubt even Articulett would deny that the changing of letters is a random process (as it is stated by definition) and so probabilistic.

Where I believe her misunderstanding comes in (not meaning to misrepresent, it's just hard to separate the actual arguments from the condescending diatribes) is that she thinks that having a selection criteria is ground for calling the process non-random.

There's two main problems with this.

First, consider an argument by analogy. If you play roulette, it is a game of chance. It is a random effect where the ball lands even if it landing on Red may double your money. Just like Dawkin's weasel program, nothing about that contradicts or doesn't fit with the definition of random I gave earlier.

Second, consider where the selection process came from. Is it the result of probabilities? Of course. Of all the sentences in Shakespeare, how likely was it that Dawkins chose that sentence? The variables are unknown of course, but of all the insults that Shakespeare wrote, how likely was that to stick in Dawkins' mind? Impossible to know, of course, but an unknown probability is still a probability and thus random. Similarly, unless Articulett is trying to present an argument to help ID (unintentionally as she usually does), she can't deny that natural selection processes don't proceed from probabilistic roots. Unless you're going to say that everything was completely pre-determined (by who I wonder) you have to admit to a range of probabilities that selection pressures can fall into to; therefore probabilistic, therefore random.

 

[quixotecoyote]

#156-pure insults and ad hom, no content

#157-sheer denial without explication or content combined with poison well fallacies

#158-admission of trolling.

Frankly that's what I thought you were doing. No one can produce that much text and say so little of substance if they actually are trying to argue a position.

Please PM me when you are done trolling. I wouldn't mind having a legitimate discussion about this.