Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

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.

We have seen evolution happen in nature, as a consequence of random genetic change and the resultant organism's subsequent interactions with the environment. Given that those are the only consistently detectable elements to natural evolution, and your only argument for intelligence in it is "I can't see how this could happen naturally," then there's no reason for us to provide anything more than the simple observations. We can observe the natural, unguided evolution, and you haven't provided us anything that would suggest that an intelligence is involved; you're attempting to add in a layer of complexity for which there's no evidence and no reason to believe beyond that you want to.

The burden of proof lies with you, as you're making the positive claim beyond what is evident.

[Esquilax]

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.

So, three things: one, physics does not equal biology. Two, if the mechanism has no evidence for it, then it's irrational to believe it exists. Three, you have presented nothing but arguments from ignorance, and hence no reason to draw the conclusion you wish us to.

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! Oh my fucking god, how hard is this to get through your skull? Convergent evolution is the result of similar environmental stimuli resulting in similar evolutionary traits. Continually asserting guidance without demonstrating it, as you're doing, does not suddenly make it so.

Do you have any evidence that this process is guided?

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.

Your analogy shows just how profoundly you don't understand this. It's just wrong; what we're saying is akin to saying that if you introduce two chemicals together in two different beakers, the results will be the same because the chemicals reacting together are the same. What you're saying is that the second set of chemicals has no reason to react the same as the first, and so is obviously being guided toward that reaction... despite providing no evidence of guidance.

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.

No, you wouldn't, because the mutations would still be random and it's entirely possible that a mutation could arise beyond our predictive capabilities that is still better suited to the environment. And again, evolution works on a criteria of "good enough," so less than ideal traits can still propagate; only outright harmful traits that are fatal get selected out. This is a much wider topic than you're thinking.

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.

Are rainclouds and wind essentially a blueprint for puddles?

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice you shiftily ignoring the fact that you got called out on quote mining me.

[max-greece]

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.

I think you are being somewhat selective in your reading of the answers posted in this thread.

I have made 2 posts that you have ignored - the first being on the origins of whales and the second on DNA and its incompatibility with the idea of an intelligent designer - except on the basis of one that is learning on the job.

Further, to repeat a response that you have ignored throughout there is the issue of failure. 98-99.8% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. If that is the result of intelligent tinkering it is not by an intelligence I would rate particularly highly. Even allowing for the idea of learning on the job - slow learner.

So - can we prove that evolution isn't guided?

Only circumstantially because, as ever, it is impossible to prove a negative - the Jovian Teapot springs to mind (as one user had named themselves on here).

There are, however, strong indications that environmental issues play an enormous part in evolution. Island dwarfism (eg. the Maltese Elephant, the "Hobbit", the Cyprus Dwarf Hippo and so on) indicates that isolated species with limited resources respond by reducing size.

At the same time, on islands where resources are not limited, this is not observed. In fact the opposite can occur - see the New Zealand moa dinornithidae - probably the largest bird ever to have lived.

Finally, in some ways you are undermining your own argument with the foray into the limited number of possible combinations of DNA. Faced with similar environmental demands there is a tendency amongst creatures to adopt similar solutions when occupying the equivalent niche - possibly because DNA offers limited options - your argument.

With all of the above in mind - why are we resisting the concept of intelligence behind evolution? 2 reasons - there is no evidence for it and its the more complicated option as it requires an unexplained designer (a not massively competent one to boot).

[Alex K]

Wow you show an impressive stamina in light of the dim.

[Heywood]

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! Oh my fucking god, how hard is this to get through your skull? Convergent evolution is the result of similar environmental stimuli resulting in similar evolutionary traits. Continually asserting guidance without demonstrating it, as you're doing, does not suddenly make it so.

Do you have any evidence that this process is guided?

The evidence that it is guided is the fact that evolution tends to a common result. It is guided by evolutionary stimuli. Evolutionary stimuli or fitness paradigm is the context in which evolution takes place. You yourself admitted that evolution is guided the same way a river is guided by its banks. I agree. As far as I can tell we really are not in disagreement.

Your analogy shows just how profoundly you don't understand this. It's just wrong; what we're saying is akin to saying that if you introduce two chemicals together in two different beakers, the results will be the same because the chemicals reacting together are the same. What you're saying is that the second set of chemicals has no reason to react the same as the first, and so is obviously being guided toward that reaction... despite providing no evidence of guidance.

There is no random element in the chemical reaction you describe so of course the results will be identical. If the ancestors of the grey wolf and the marsupial wolf mutated identically then obviously you would expect the final forms to be identical. Evolution doesn't work like chemical reactions so your analogy fails.

---

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.

We have seen evolution happen in nature, as a consequence of random genetic change and the resultant organism's subsequent interactions with the environment. Given that those are the only consistently detectable elements to natural evolution, and your only argument for intelligence in it is "I can't see how this could happen naturally," then there's no reason for us to provide anything more than the simple observations. We can observe the natural, unguided evolution, and you haven't provided us anything that would suggest that an intelligence is involved; you're attempting to add in a layer of complexity for which there's no evidence and no reason to believe beyond that you want to.

The burden of proof lies with you, as you're making the positive claim beyond what is evident.

What is evident to me is that evolutionary systems whose origins are known all came into existence with the involvement of an intellect...somewhere in the process. That suggests that perhaps evolutionary systems cannot come into being without the involvement of an intellect.

Now one thing that bothers me about what I wrote above is how does an intellect replicate evolution without being involved in the process? Obviously there would be some involvement...but it shouldn't be substantive. It shouldn't consist of designing fitness function for instance.

[Esquilax]

The evidence that it is guided is the fact that evolution tends to a common result. It is guided by evolutionary stimuli. Evolutionary stimuli or fitness paradigm is the context in which evolution takes place. You yourself admitted that evolution is guided the same way a river is guided by its banks. I agree. As far as I can tell we really are not in disagreement.

Again, you have it backwards. Let me put it this way: I have a tennis ball, which I bounce on the ground once. I do it a second time, and just like the first, it bounces off of the floor and I can catch it. I can do that a hundred more times, just like the first. There's a common result there, but would you then say that the ball is only bouncing because it's being guided to bounce? Or would you just say that I'm introducing the ball to the same physical stimuli, and so it is reacting in a way that's consistent with the fact that literally nothing about what's happening to it has changed?

Convergent evolution is this, on a more complex scale; similar stimuli is being applied to essentially random mutations, so it's no more surprising that similar traits might arise than it is that a random number generator restricted to only single digit numbers will spit out the number six more than once.

You're saying "oh, similar things happened in evolution, so therefore guidance," when realistically the answer is "similar things happened in evolution because the stimuli was similar."

There is no random element in the chemical reaction you describe so of course the results will be identical. If the ancestors of the grey wolf and the marsupial wolf mutated identically then obviously you would expect the final forms to be identical. Evolution doesn't work like chemical reactions so your analogy fails.

My analogy works just fine, you just lack imagination. See, I accept that there's a random element present in evolution that isn't in chemical reactions, but that is also accounted for, since not every evolutionary model that comes out of nature is convergent; the grey wolf and the marsupial wolf (it's called a Tasmanian Tiger, by the way. I should know, I'm Tasmanian myself ) are the two examples that you have, but there's plenty of other animals who developed in the same environment without being the same.

Your claim is that the same stimuli, attached to the same random process, producing two creatures that are similar is impossible without guidance. I'm saying it's not terribly crazy to suggest that a random process, restricted by similar constraints, will occasionally repeat itself.

The difference is that I have evidence of nature, you have no evidence of guidance, particularly with "theistic implications," and that means you run afoul of Occam's Razor.

What is evident to me is that evolutionary systems whose origins are known all came into existence with the involvement of an intellect...somewhere in the process. That suggests that perhaps evolutionary systems cannot come into being without the involvement of an intellect.

Argument from ignorance.

[Heywood]

What is evident to me is that evolutionary systems whose origins are known all came into existence with the involvement of an intellect...somewhere in the process. That suggests that perhaps evolutionary systems cannot come into being without the involvement of an intellect.

Argument from ignorance.

Its not an argument of ignorance. Its a probability argument. Let me explain.

If I have a bag containing three marbles each of which is either white or black what is the probability all the marble are white? To figure this out let W stand for white marble and B stand for black marble. There are four possible configurations

1)W-W-W
2)W-W-B
3)W-B-B
4)B-B-B

Principle of indifference applies here so each has a probability of .25. Now what happens if I randomly draw a marble and it is white? Now the probability that all the marbles are white increases to .33 because configuration 4 is no longer possible. What happens if I draw another marble and it is white? Well the probability that all the marbles in the bag are/were white increases to .5. Everytime a white marble is drawn while no black marbles have been drawn...it increases the likelihood all marbles are white.

I look at Darwinian evolution much the same way. I don't know if it white(the product of an intellect) or black(not the product of intellect). However each time I see an evolutionary system whose origins I know and it turns out that it is the product of an intellect, that in my mind increase the likelihood that all evolutionary systems are the product of intellects.

[Alex K]

Argument from ignorance.

Its not an argument of ignorance. Its a probability argument. Let me explain.

If I have a bag containing three marbles each of which is either white or black what is the probability all the marble are white? To figure this out let W stand for white marble and B stand for black marble. There are four possible configurations

1)W-W-W
2)W-W-B
3)W-B-B
4)B-B-B

Principle of indifference applies here so each has a probability of .25. Now what happens if I randomly draw a marble and it is white? Now the probability that all the marbles are white increases to .33 because configuration 4 is no longer possible. What happens if I draw another marble and it is white? Well the probability that all the marbles in the bag are/were white increases to .5. Everytime a white marble is drawn while no black marbles have been drawn...it increases the likelihood all marbles are white.

I look at Darwinian evolution much the same way. I don't know if it white(the product of an intellect) or black(not the product of intellect). However each time I see an evolutionary system whose origins I know and it turns out that it is the product of an intellect, that in my mind increase the likelihood that all evolutionary systems are the product of intellects.

LOL
You willfully keep looking at man made systems, and then you -surprise- discover that they are all based on an intellect. In your mind that tells you such systems are probably impossible to occur without an intellect? Evidence, you are doing it wrong. Probability? Omg

[Heywood]

Its not an argument of ignorance. Its a probability argument. Let me explain.

If I have a bag containing three marbles each of which is either white or black what is the probability all the marble are white? To figure this out let W stand for white marble and B stand for black marble. There are four possible configurations

1)W-W-W
2)W-W-B
3)W-B-B
4)B-B-B

Principle of indifference applies here so each has a probability of .25. Now what happens if I randomly draw a marble and it is white? Now the probability that all the marbles are white increases to .33 because configuration 4 is no longer possible. What happens if I draw another marble and it is white? Well the probability that all the marbles in the bag are/were white increases to .5. Everytime a white marble is drawn while no black marbles have been drawn...it increases the likelihood all marbles are white.

I look at Darwinian evolution much the same way. I don't know if it white(the product of an intellect) or black(not the product of intellect). However each time I see an evolutionary system whose origins I know and it turns out that it is the product of an intellect, that in my mind increase the likelihood that all evolutionary systems are the product of intellects.

LOL
You willfully keep looking at man made systems, and then you -surprise- discover that they are all based on an intellect. In your mind that tells you such systems are probably impossible to occur without an intellect? Evidence, you are doing it wrong. Probability? Omg

Are all evolutionary systems the product of an intellect? Is that a valid question or not? Obviously it is a valid question so how do you go about answering it? You start looking at evolutionary systems. Perhaps you can give an example of an evolutionary system whose origins are known but is not the product of an intellect.

[Esquilax]

Are all evolutionary systems the product of an intellect? Is that a valid question or not? Obviously it is a valid question so how do you go about answering it? You start looking at evolutionary systems. Perhaps you can give an example of an evolutionary system whose origins are known but is not the product of an intellect.

Which means your position is begging the question, since the only possible way you could consider it a problem for us is by assuming that natural evolution is the product of an intellect too, something you absolutely have not demonstrated, and have no reason to think is so.

Principle of indifference applies here so each has a probability of .25. Now what happens if I randomly draw a marble and it is white? Now the probability that all the marbles are white increases to .33 because configuration 4 is no longer possible. What happens if I draw another marble and it is white? Well the probability that all the marbles in the bag are/were white increases to .5. Everytime a white marble is drawn while no black marbles have been drawn...it increases the likelihood all marbles are white.

This argument is breathtakingly stupid: the reason the probability increases in your example is because you have a set, known number of marbles to begin with, hence each time you remove one and know its color you're reducing the unknown number of marbles by one.

But removing one evolutionary system and determining it was made by intelligence doesn't reduce the number of potential evolutionary systems, because you don't know how many are possible. The number of unknowns is exactly the same, and hence, the probability is exactly the same, barring a dishonest and profoundly incorrect understanding of how probability works.

That's why I say you're begging the question, and are now looking for anything you can to confirm the thing you've decided is true without evidence.