Exactly. To quote the famous dentist and philosopher of science, Don McLeroy:

"Somebody has got to stand up to experts!"

(March 16, 2014 at 4:28 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 14, 2014 at 8:30 am)Heywood Wrote: Warning! Let me preface by saying that as free thinkers, it is okay to question science and authorities in science

Correction: there are no authorities in science. There are experts

(March 15, 2014 at 11:02 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 15, 2014 at 7:48 am)LostLocke Wrote: Which would leave you with the concept that every species that exists, has existed, and will exist is a target. Kinda makes the whole concept of a target useless and practically infinite.

You are incorrect.

A target could consist of the complete set of all possibilities....like the random sentence in Dawkins' example. Or it could be a very small subset of all possibilities....like the specific sentence from Dawkins' example. Or it could contain any number of possibilities. Convergent evolution suggests that in natural evolution the size of the targets is relatively small.

By your definition then, you could go below species to sub-species or breed. Or up, to family, order, class, etc...
Which of all these groups is a target? Which are not? Or are they all targets?
When does whatever group you want to call it become a target? When does it stop being a target?

65 million years, were those massive reptilian and avian creatures walking the earth the target? When the meteor hit and they were, relatively, instantly wiped out and mammals moved up the ranks, were they now the target?

(March 16, 2014 at 1:21 am)Alex K Wrote: He really doesn't it seeems.

Heywood, could you describe in your own words how "darwinian" evolution is supposed to work, and then place your objection?

Here is how I define evolution most of the time.

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.

I say most of the time because technically evolution doesn't require complexity, diversity, knowledge, or anything to increase. Evolution can sometimes cause these things to decrease. But for this thread...lets keep is simple and just use this as my definition.

I have no objection to evolution. I object to calling it blind process because it is guided by a fitness paradigm. Much like the banks guide the flow of the river and the river influences the banks, Darwinian evolution is guided by a fitness paradigm, but also influences that same fitness paradigm. I wouldn't call the flow of a river blind so I don't call evolution blind(unless it is evolution without a fitness paradigm....like Dawkins' random sentence generator....but that is evolution only in a very strict sense....not a Darwinian sense).

[/i]

(March 16, 2014 at 10:05 am)Heywood Wrote: I have no objection to evolution. I object to calling it blind process because it is guided by a fitness paradigm. Much like the banks guide the flow of the river and the river influences the banks, Darwinian evolution is guided by a fitness paradigm, but also influences that same fitness paradigm. I wouldn't call the flow of a river blind so I don't call evolution blind(unless it is evolution without a fitness paradigm....like Dawkins' random sentence generator....but that is evolution only in a very strict sense....not a Darwinian sense).

[/i]

What sighted force is causing the river to flow? Or are you just attempting to call natural causes sighted, thus turning this entire thread into a pointless exercise in misapplying definitions?

(March 16, 2014 at 10:16 am)Esquilax Wrote: What sighted force is causing the river to flow? Or are you just attempting to call natural causes sighted, thus turning this entire thread into a pointless exercise in misapplying definitions?

The banks guide the river to a particular destination. Do you think that when Dawkins said evolution was blind, he meant that it had no eyes?

(March 16, 2014 at 10:26 am)Heywood Wrote: The banks guide the river to a particular destination.

And do you think that it requires a sentient being to keep those rivers flowing?

(March 16, 2014 at 10:26 am)Heywood Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 10:16 am)Esquilax Wrote: What sighted force is causing the river to flow? Or are you just attempting to call natural causes sighted, thus turning this entire thread into a pointless exercise in misapplying definitions?

The banks guide the river to a particular destination. Do you think that when Dawkins said evolution was blind, he meant that it had no eyes?

No, I think he meant that there was no conscious force guiding it.

(March 16, 2014 at 10:32 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 10:26 am)Heywood Wrote: The banks guide the river to a particular destination.

And do you think that it requires a sentient being to keep those rivers flowing?

Evolution is different from a river. You can replicate a river by the simple act of dumping a whole lot of water on the ground and the river will form its own banks.

If you try to replicate evolution you need to construct those banks before hand.

---

(March 16, 2014 at 10:33 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 10:26 am)Heywood Wrote: The banks guide the river to a particular destination. Do you think that when Dawkins said evolution was blind, he meant that it had no eyes?

No, I think he meant that there was no conscious force guiding it.

re-watch the video and then tell us if you still think that.

(March 16, 2014 at 10:44 am)Heywood Wrote: re-watch the video and then tell us if you still think that.

You could save us all time and just tell us what you think it means.

(March 16, 2014 at 10:56 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 10:44 am)Heywood Wrote: re-watch the video and then tell us if you still think that.

You could save us all time and just tell us what you think it means.

By "blind" I think Dawkins means evolution isn't destined to produce a particular outcome....that there is no component of an evolutionary system which looks ahead. He demonstrates this by replicating evolution which has looked ahead because he can't replicate cumulative selection otherwise. He makes an assertion which is completely contradicted by his example. Why should I or anyone believe his assertion?

Maybe you can watch the video again and tell us what you think he means.