Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Alex K]

If you could generate the complexity we observe and attribute to natural selection with a completely random fitness paradigm, I would consider my speculation falsified.

So after all your posturing, all your little speeches, you're nothing but a common cdesign proponentsist. You think evolution without intelligent design is wrong, but the argument you instead make here is that Dawkins says something you don't like in some TV series? Please, science is not done on TV shows, forget the TV and argue what you really want to argue.

[JesusHChrist]

I don't know what a "fitness paradigm" is.

However, there is the concept of a fitness landscape.

As pointed out earlier, you have it ass backwards.

The fitness landscape exists and then organisms adapt via selection to the fitness landscape.

Landscapes exist but no intent is necessary or present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape

[pocaracas]

It was a cheat, because the end result was imposed! and, once found, was kept for eternity.

I could have not been so much of a cheat had some results been "discouraged", perhaps by forcing non-valid syllables or something to be ignored, but allowing valid ones.

There does not seem to be such a fixed end result for biological evolution. You have present forms, but those are still evolving... and should evolve for as long as life is possible on this planet... and perhaps evolution will take life from this planet to other planets.

[Faith No More]

If you could generate the complexity we observe and attribute to natural selection with a completely random fitness paradigm, I would consider my speculation falsified.

You're not understanding. The mutations themselves are random, but the process that weeds out what isn't beneficial is not random. So, if we trained different members of the same species in random ways, and then used a selective algorithm based on evolution, you would end up with highly fit animals after a long enough period of time. This algorithm needs no intentional agent to guide objects in the same way that gravity needs no intentional agent. Life evolves based on the non-intentional "guidance" of survivability.

If you want to believe that god guided evolution, fine, but don't go around saying that evolution has theistic implications when you clearly don't have a solid foundational understanding of the subject.

[Heywood]

Are you joking? You think that similar circumstances leading to similar looking results of natural selection is somehow at odds with an atheistic worldview? That's wrong, and your charge that there is anything to hide is ridiculous.

Dawkins showed that an intellect can use evolution as a means to a specific end. He then called his demonstration a cheat. Why?

A)He believes natural evolution isn't guided by anything and thus not homing in on anything(which is clearly a blunder because it sometimes does home in on particular forms).

B)He realizes evolution is guided by a fitness paradigm but was concerned people would conclude God used this as a means of creation(contrary to an atheistic world view).

[Mister Agenda]

So don't just simulate evolution (all of it from the first cell, apparently, which we don't yet have the computing power for), get the same results with a different reproductive environment? If that actually happened it would prove that not only is evolution guided, so are simulations of it. If the reproductive environment is random, getting similar results is not to be expected. Life can't exist in 99.99999% of the universe, I expect you would agree to the parameters of reproductive environments being limited to what can reasonably be found on a planet we would expect to be able to harbor life. The simulation would involve a random simulated planet generator, and starting with a simulated imperfect yet high fidelity self-replicating cell.

We're at least decades from a computer capable of simulating millions of years of evolution in a matter of months, but when we are, do you think the simulated cell will not evolve into more complex forms in a less earthlike environment because 'not guided'? What if we ran a million simulations of different simulated worlds and got complex life on 1% of them...that would falsify your claim, wouldn't it?

[Alex K]

Are you joking? You think that similar circumstances leading to similar looking results of natural selection is somehow at odds with an atheistic worldview? That's wrong, and your charge that there is anything to hide is ridiculous.

Dawkins showed that an intellect can use evolution as a means to a specific end. He then called his demonstration a cheat. Why?

A)He believes natural evolution isn't guided by anything and thus not homing in on anything(which is clearly a blunder because it sometimes does home in on particular forms).

If you want to call convergence from similar circumstances homing in, fine, that's something that is obvious to anyone working on evolution. It is in this sense guided by the environment, also a fact that is obvious to anyone working on evolution. That natural selection needs to be guided by anything beyond the environment and the resulting "selection pressure" to explain convergent evolution is just a product of your fantasy

B)He realizes evolution is guided by a fitness paradigm but was concerned people would conclude God used this as a means of creation(contrary to an atheistic world view).

How about no? You sound like a broken record. Your objection is unjustified.

[pocaracas]

Being a theos must suck... millions of years of hard work to get busted by something as trivial as a "natural disaster", or deforestation...

For an eternal being, billions of years is but an instance. For an all powerful being, there is no such thing as 'hard work". From a human perspective evolution as a creative process looks circuitous but this is not the case for God.

For a 30 year old being, 5 minutes isn't too long...
For a relatively fit male holding up 5kg is easy.
But 5 minutes holding up the 5kg becomes hard work.
Don't presume to know things about an entity you have no way of knowing anything.

[Faith No More]

Heywood, you're ignoring my points, so I want you to answer this question.

Does gravity require an intentional agent?

[Heywood]

So after all your posturing, all your little speeches, you're nothing but a common cdesign proponentsist. You think evolution without intelligent design is wrong, but the argument you instead make here is that Dawkins says something you don't like in some TV series? Please, science is not done on TV shows, forget the TV and argue what you really want to argue.

I am arguing what I want to argue.

Evolution is guided and not blind. Evolution can be used by intellects to create specific things.

I substantiated my argument by calling out Dawkins for saying something which I think is wrong(he said evolution was completely blind).