Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

Okay, let's recap what just happened here. I gave a very clear, unambiguous reason why Heywood's analogy failed. With all the smug confidence of an imbecile, Heywood's response was to restate his flawed premise, and that's it.

- bolded by me

I'm sorry Esquilax since you have stooped to name calling, I no longer feel obligated to respond to any of your posts. I'm not saying I am ignoring you....it's just that I don't see much point in carrying on a conversation with you if your inclination is to verbally abuse your adversary.

I will of course respect your position as a moderator and will fill obligated to respond when you post something in accordance with your position.

---

False dilemma with god of the gaps. It's logically possible life on earth was created and guided by aliens, but not logically probable. Furthermore, if you're talking about an alien who found earth and genetically enhanced some of the primates, you're no longer in the Christian canon.

I don't argue the Christian canon.

---

Well I disagree with you.

How do you know that one fitness function(your claim not mine) is not designed?

Ah, the standard tactic of the christian with a worthless argument!

"You can't prove it's not true!"

Negative Esquilax.

He made a claim, I am asking him to substantiate it.

[Mudhammam]

What in God's unholy name are you talking about? Everything besides the creations of mankind are the examples you seek. Evolution by way of natural selection (hint: no intellect involved) has been observed. It is observed everyday. Creationists commonly refer to it as "micro-evolution" ...which is how speciation (macro-evolution) gets accomplished.

With a statement as strong as that I would think you would be able to prove that the evolutionary system which produced us was not created by an intellect. I don't think you can...nobody can. You believe God doesn't exists so ergo the evolutionary system could not have been created by Him. You're letting your atheism cloud your thinking.

Instead approach the question from a position of indifference as I have done in this thread and work from there.

Um...no. What hasn't clouded my thinking is the silly idea that in each chemical reaction there is an invisible hand guiding the motions of physical objects... We're back to your theorizing of Intelligent Falling in place of gravity.

[Heywood]

Um...no. What hasn't clouded my thinking is the silly idea that in each chemical reaction there is an invisible hand guiding the motions of physical objects... We're back to your theorizing of Intelligent Falling in place of gravity.

You and I are communicating via a system which was created by an intellect and presumably could not have come into existence otherwise.

Why is the system of evolution which created us more like a chemical reaction in your opinion as opposed to this system of computers?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Um...no. What hasn't clouded my thinking is the silly idea that in each chemical reaction there is an invisible hand guiding the motions of physical objects... We're back to your theorizing of Intelligent Falling in place of gravity.

You and I are communicating via a system which was created by an intellect and presumably could not have come into existence otherwise.

Why is the system of evolution which created us more like a chemical reaction in your opinion as opposed to this system of computers?

The science that created the computer you're using to argue against science explains it. And

[pocaracas]

Just to try and break out of the cycle... so what if there IS an intelligence acting behind the screens, in an inscrutable way?

[Rampant.A.I.]

If there is, it's probably the mice from Hitchhiker's Guide.

[Mudhammam]

It seems like we're arguing dualism under the false guise of scientific credibility here.

[Chas]

You are making two errors which render the support for your argument null.

1. You are confusing simulation with the real thing. Simulations are man-made and are approximations.
   
   
2. You continue to confuse examples of aspects of evolution with simulations of evolution. Dawkins's two examples that you cite are examples of aspects of evolution - the power of cumulative selection and the fact that simple rules can lead to complexity. Neither is a simulation of evolution.
   

[Heywood]

It seems like we're arguing dualism under the false guise of scientific credibility here.

Dualism has an armada of different meanings. For instance in physics there is wave/particle duality. In what sense are we arguing dualism?

As far as science goes, I don't think there is any real disagreement on the science. The disagreement is in the interpretation of that science.

Regarding the claim made by another poster that simulations are not evolution...that is just plain wrong. Any process which satisfies the definition of evolution can be said to be evolution. I put forth the following definition for evolution in this thread and received no objections or criticisms.

Evolution is a process whereby small changes in the heritable 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.


Simulations contain these elements and achieve the stated results.

[Rampant.A.I.]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(...y_of_mind)