(March 17, 2014 at 5:53 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Except I personally had already told you why you were wrong along with every other sentient being that has viewed your turgid drivel. And did not want to repeat myself.

But if you insist.

Evolution has same results in similar circumstances because evolutionary pressures are the same.

No goal or guide needed.

This is not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to grasp it.

Why is it if "evolutionary pressures" are the same the same results are achieved?(this isn't always the case btw).

(March 17, 2014 at 5:58 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 5:53 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Except I personally had already told you why you were wrong along with every other sentient being that has viewed your turgid drivel. And did not want to repeat myself.

But if you insist.

Evolution has same results in similar circumstances because evolutionary pressures are the same.

No goal or guide needed.

This is not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to grasp it.

Why is it if "evolutionary pressures" are the same the same results are achieved?

The answer is in the question.

Quote:(this isn't always the case btw).

I know and that is because there are other factors at play.

Did I ever claim that convergent evolution was all pervasive coz I don't think I did?

I was however trying to keep it simple for you because I sensed that you were struggling with the concept.

But thinking about it I have come to the conclusion you are just in love with your own idea even though it is a silly one.

(March 17, 2014 at 5:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: Why is it if "evolutionary pressures" are the same the same results are achieved?(this isn't always the case btw).

Not only is it not always the case as it is rarely the case.
Gazelles and zebra evolved pretty much on the same habitat as lions and cheetahs and hyenas... and yet, these are all different very animals.... and don't get me started on elephants.

(March 17, 2014 at 5:09 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 4:01 am)Esquilax Wrote: This is the problem with you: you make this assertion that evolution can look ahead, while providing no mechanism through which that can happen. You're all bark and no bite; what process in natural selection "looks ahead" to you? What part of the natural world is making predictions and guiding evolution? For that matter, how does an unconscious environment guide anything?

In the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, photons "look ahead" in a way that it not understood by physics. Just because a mechanism isn't clearly provided by theory doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You have to look at what you observe and draw conclusions and not be afraid if those conclusions go against your world view.

Convergent evolution exists, this is a fact and it is not in dispute. Convergent evolution is the name given to the phenomena of evolution homing in on particular forms or targets.

No, it isn't. It is the term used to describe organisms ending up with similar forms or mechanisms when faced with similar challenges. And it doesn't always occur. The same challenges are met in different ways.

Quote:You can say this is not targeting but rather just the best solution manifesting itself but that is like saying hungry people don't target the buffet, but instead they naturally go to where the food is. All you are doing is re-describing the phenomena with different words because you don't like the connotation of some words. In that process you are blinding yourself to new insights and ideas.

No, it's not like that at all. You have no valid insights or ideas on this subject.

Quote:In this thread I gave an example of a selection criterion that is essentially a description of the product that evolution will produce. I would speculate that if one were to know and understand the selection criterion of any evolutionary system in sufficient detail they would be able to predict what products will be derived from that system.

You have yet to provide a coherent definition of 'selection criterion'. Evolutionary theory already has a clear, concise, coherent description of natural selection.

Quote:The aggregate of selective pressures are essentially a blue print. Cumulative selection is the mechanism by which that blue print becomes actualized. A process which follows an identifiable plan is not blind. Dawkins is wrong.

There is no blueprint. You are a moron.

---

(March 17, 2014 at 5:23 pm)Thunder Cunt Wrote: I agree with the title of the thread

Go join Heywood in the corner. Here's your dunce cap.

(March 17, 2014 at 5:49 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 5:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Your answer: Those creatures better adapted to the environment are better adapted because there is a blueprint created by a magical wizard, who guides evolution to create specific morphological adaptations because they were what the wizard intelligently intended them to look like.

I never claimed God is responsible for the "blueprints". I never claimed God is responsible for the existence of this evolutionary system that created us. Go...try to find quotes from me which say such...they aren't there.

I have claimed:

1. Evolution is not a blind process as Dawkins suggested.

2. God or any other sufficient intellect, can use evolution to create specific forms by designing the fitness paradigm(or selection criterion or what ever you want to call it).

And you haven't supported either claim, nor the claim <God exists>.

They're simply unnecessary add-ons that make no sense when evolution functions without either of those assertions being true, and so far you haven't provided any support.

(March 17, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Chas Wrote: Go join Heywood in the corner. Here's your dunce cap.

If anyone ever wonders why I pretty just ignore Chas.....its because he is a jackass.

(March 17, 2014 at 6:53 pm)Heywood Wrote: If anyone ever wonders why I pretty just ignore Chas.....its because he is a jackass.

You don't pay attention to anyone who shows you how wrong you are.


You will note that your reputation here is zero. And on TTA, it's -24. Ever wonder why?

(March 17, 2014 at 6:57 pm)Chas Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 6:53 pm)Heywood Wrote: If anyone ever wonders why I pretty just ignore Chas.....its because he is a jackass.

You don't pay attention to anyone who shows you how wrong you are.

If someone shows me they can have a good faith discussion....not interject personal insults into their arguments...I pay more attention to what they have to say. I make an effort to respond to their posts. If someone demonstrates they are a jackass, their posts get skimmed if read at all.

In this discussion its like 8 or 9 against 1. I just don't have the time to deal with everyone so Jackasses like you get ignored.

---

(March 17, 2014 at 6:08 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Not only is it not always the case as it is rarely the case.
Gazelles and zebra evolved pretty much on the same habitat as lions and cheetahs and hyenas... and yet, these are all different very animals.... and don't get me started on elephants.

Some distinguished scientists, like Simon Conway Morris, argue that convergent evolution is the dominant force in evolution.

The significance of convergent evolution is not a settle matter....probably never will be as it is difficult to quantify.

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

Actually, the banks did no such thing. What caused the river to take a specific course was the force of gravity acting on individual molecules of water. If there were no gravity, the water wouldn't follow the course set by the banks of the river, and gravity is most certainly blind to the nature of the river's course.

(March 17, 2014 at 6:44 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 5:49 pm)Heywood Wrote: I never claimed God is responsible for the "blueprints". I never claimed God is responsible for the existence of this evolutionary system that created us. Go...try to find quotes from me which say such...they aren't there.

I have claimed:

1. Evolution is not a blind process as Dawkins suggested.

2. God or any other sufficient intellect, can use evolution to create specific forms by designing the fitness paradigm(or selection criterion or what ever you want to call it).

And you haven't supported either claim, nor the claim <God exists>.

They're simply unnecessary add-ons that make no sense when evolution functions without either of those assertions being true, and so far you haven't provided any support.

Actually it is you guys who seem to be asserting that evolutionary systems can come into existence without the involvement of an intellect......but for some reason....you can never substantiate that assertion.

On the other hand....its very easy to demonstrate evolutionary systems coming into existence with the involvement of an intellect.