Just Accidental?

[Guy Threepwood]

Did your models take account of progressive accumulation of changes, or did they assume things arise "all at once".
"All at once" models are popular among con artists out to fleece the gullible.

Of course, and here is Dawkin's own example of progressive accumulation

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

As always, as you see here, the end result is determined from the outset.


Consider that even then, the model has another great advantage over reality, in that it can allow for any number of entirely dysfunctional intermediates on route to the desired result.


The models merely back up the other lines of evidence; what we also observe in the fossil record and direct experimentation, which show no macro evolution by gradual accumulation/ transition either

 

[metis]

The models merely back up the other lines of evidence; what we also observe in the fossil record and direct experimentation, which show no macro evolution by gradual accumulation/ transition either

What scientific evidence can you provide us that says that "micro-evolution" must miraculously stop before getting to the "macro-evolution" stage? You assert it, so now let us see your source(s).

If such would be the case, then geneticists the world over should be objecting to any suggestion that macro-evolution can happen-- except that they overwhelmingly don't.

 

[Looncall]

Of course, and here is Dawkin's own example of progressive accumulation



As always, as you see here, the end result is determined from the outset.


Consider that even then, the model has another great advantage over reality, in that it can allow for any number of entirely dysfunctional intermediates on route to the desired result.


The models merely back up the other lines of evidence; what we also observe in the fossil record and direct experimentation, which show no macro evolution by gradual accumulation/ transition either

And in nature, selection is applied by the environment. Your objection is usual dishonest creationist drivel.

 

[ArtieE]

Of course, and here is Dawkin's own example of progressive accumulation

As always, as you see here, the end result is determined from the outset.

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

To simplify a bit: Imagine that instead of the letters "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" you have the entire genome of an elephant written out with the letters AGCT. Or that of a walrus. Or a mosquito. All the previous generations and all the ancestors to those animals would be perfectly viable organisms with their own different genomes.

 

[ArtieE]

Consider that even then, the model has another great advantage over reality, in that it can allow for any number of entirely dysfunctional intermediates on route to the desired result.

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Which ones are dysfunctional? You do understand that if generation 43 is an elephant all the previous generations consist of perfectly functional viable reproducing organisms in their own right?

 

[Sapiens]

Of course, and here is Dawkin's own example of progressive accumulation



As always, as you see here, the end result is determined from the outset.


Consider that even then, the model has another great advantage over reality, in that it can allow for any number of entirely dysfunctional intermediates on route to the desired result.


The models merely back up the other lines of evidence; what we also observe in the fossil record and direct experimentation, which show no macro evolution by gradual accumulation/ transition either

Horse puckey! Many lines evidence macro evolution by gradual accumulation/ transition including whales and horses.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sounds nothing like natural selection to me. Intelligence programmed adaptation....evolution does not involve intelligence or planning, either in its method or its result. It's just a series of very fortunate accidents........I worry about the intelligence of its believers though, just as they worry about ours. I know which scenario makes more sense to me.

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Which ones are dysfunctional? You do understand that if generation 43 is an elephant all the previous generations consist of perfectly functional viable reproducing organisms in their own right?

You tell me, is

WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

more, or less viable in it's own right than

WDLTMNLT KTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P?


There is no way to judge, because In this model there is no such thing as dysfunctional or even marginally detrimental configuration of the code, complete nonsense intermediates are just fine-

Not so in reality,

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And in nature, selection is applied by the environment. Your objection is usual dishonest creationist drivel.

"insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat"

 

[Deeje]

Did your models take account of progressive accumulation of changes, or did they assume things arise "all at once".

"Progressive accumulations" take place within one species......its called adaptation and science wants us to believe that if a little is provable in a lab, (calling it "micro-evolution") then quantum leaps of assumption based on that model, (calling that "macro-evolution") must be true....one species can transform over time into millions or even billions of different living things, all with the ability to reproduce themselves......yet they have not one single shred of real evidence that they ever did. Who says that what science 'assumes' and 'suggests' is correct?
.....only those who want to believe that it is.

"All at once" models are popular among con artists out to fleece the gullible.

I don't think atheists would know how to identify gullibility among themselves if it jumped up and bit them. It would mean that they have all been hoodwinked by the same erroneous assumption that random chance can be the cause of purposeful and ingenious design. For something to have purpose and to demonstrate ingenuity, there has to be a plan and a purpose along with a way to implement it. Creation has both, but in the eyes of non-believers, it is impossible to even contemplate an Intelligent Designer as the planner....that would make them all feel so....well......unintelligent.

 

[Sapiens]

You tell me, is

WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

more, or less viable in it's own right than

WDLTMNLT KTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P?


There is no way to judge, because In this model there is no such thing as dysfunctional or even marginally detrimental configuration of the code, complete nonsense intermediates are just fine-

Not so in reality,

Your question is nonsensical in light of the experiment. I recommend you read about it from the source: Dawkins, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker Oxford University Press, that will (at least) permit you to appear somewhat less foolish. Who knows. you might learn something too.

 

[ArtieE]

You tell me, is

WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

more, or less viable in it's own right than

WDLTMNLT KTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P?

They were both different livable organisms in their own right that produced offspring. Otherwise you wouldn't have ended up with a generation 43.

There is no way to judge, because In this model there is no such thing as dysfunctional or even marginally detrimental configuration of the code, complete nonsense intermediates are just fine-

Not so in reality,

LOL in the list only functional organisms in each generation that produced viable offspring capable of producing a new generation of viable offspring are mentioned. Non of the intermediates in the list are "nonsense" intermediates. You simply don't understand the point the list is making.

 

[ArtieE]

"Progressive accumulations" take place within one species......its called adaptation and science wants us to believe that if a little is provable in a lab, (calling it "micro-evolution") then quantum leaps of assumption based on that model, (calling that "macro-evolution") must be true....one species can transform over time into millions or even billions of different living things, all with the ability to reproduce themselves

Evolutionary biologists say that you had biological parents, and they had biological parents, and they had biological parents all the way back to first life. You say that if you followed your ancestry back through the ages all of a sudden you would end up with a person that had no biological parents but was personally designed and created by a god. But you can't give any reason as to how and why and for what reason this god would exist in the first place. People just have to use reason and logic and decide for themselves which scenario is the most likely.

I don't think atheists would know how to identify gullibility among themselves if it jumped up and bit them. It would mean that they have all been hoodwinked by the same erroneous assumption that random chance can be the cause of purposeful and ingenious design. For something to have purpose and to demonstrate ingenuity, there has to be a plan and a purpose along with a way to implement it. Creation has both, but in the eyes of non-believers, it is impossible to even contemplate an Intelligent Designer as the planner....that would make them all feel so....well......unintelligent.

If you want to make theists out of atheists just give a logical and rational explanation for how and why your god would exist in the first place.

 

[ArtieE]

"insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat"

We shouldn't insult or get angry at or pity those with a lesser intellect just because they can't understand simple analogies and explanations. We can spend hours and days explaining things to you but your inability to understand will always defeat us.

 

[Looncall]

"Progressive accumulations" take place within one species......its called adaptation and science wants us to believe that if a little is provable in a lab, (calling it "micro-evolution") then quantum leaps of assumption based on that model, (calling that "macro-evolution") must be true....one species can transform over time into millions or even billions of different living things, all with the ability to reproduce themselves......yet they have not one single shred of real evidence that they ever did. Who says that what science 'assumes' and 'suggests' is correct?
.....only those who want to believe that it is.

I don't think atheists would know how to identify gullibility among themselves if it jumped up and bit them. It would mean that they have all been hoodwinked by the same erroneous assumption that random chance can be the cause of purposeful and ingenious design. For something to have purpose and to demonstrate ingenuity, there has to be a plan and a purpose along with a way to implement it. Creation has both, but in the eyes of non-believers, it is impossible to even contemplate an Intelligent Designer as the planner....that would make them all feel so....well......unintelligent.

You lot conveniently fail to consider the failures in each generation of a lineage. The organisms that live to reproduce are winners of a lottery: they received a workable genome and managed to avoid the manifold accidents that would have killed them off before they could reproduce. Every living organism is a massive cosmic fluke.

One would expect a designed system to be much more efficient. The unthinkable wastefulness of what is observed is clear refutation of the primitive notion of teleology.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We shouldn't insult or get angry at or pity those with a lesser intellect just because they can't understand simple analogies and explanations. We can spend hours and days explaining things to you but your inability to understand will always defeat us.

C'mon don't give up so easily, I'm not going to argue your 'intellectual superiority' . You claim it often enough that I doubt anything will change your mind on that!

But a little humility, in contrast, is often needed to see where we are wrong and progress our understanding. One problem with name calling, is that it betrays a belief based largely in emotion, passion, and makes it very difficult to change one's mind no matter the evidence. Or you become all the things you called 'those people'

'The wise man knows himself a fool', Artie

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your question is nonsensical in light of the experiment. I recommend you read about it from the source: Dawkins, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker Oxford University Press, that will (at least) permit you to appear somewhat less foolish. Who knows. you might learn something too.

Once again, just for a change, try skipping the personal insults and see if you can give a substantive case for your own argument on it's own merits, you may even find it intellectually stimulating!

 

[Sapiens]

C'mon don't give up so easily, I'm not going to argue your 'intellectual superiority' . You claim it often enough that I doubt anything will change your mind on that!

But a little humility, in contrast, is often needed to see where we are wrong and progress our understanding. One problem with name calling, is that it betrays a belief based largely in emotion, passion, and makes it very difficult to change one's mind no matter the evidence. Or you become all the things you called 'those people'

'The wise man knows himself a fool', Artie

There is neither wisdom nor humility to be found in what in willful ignorance, only hubris.

Once again, just for a change, try skipping the personal insults and see if you can give a substantive case for your own argument on it's own merits, you may even find it intellectually stimulating!

I gave you the original source, what more could you ask for? Sorry that I can't take the time to create the intellectual pablum you prefer, if you want enlightenment you'll have to digest the real thing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is neither wisdom nor humility to be found in what in willful ignorance, only hubris.

I gave you the original source, what more could you ask for? Sorry that I can't take the time to create the intellectual pablum you prefer, if you want enlightenment you'll have to digest the real thing.

Never mind then, my hopes were not high!

 

[Deeje]

If you want to make theists out of atheists just give a logical and rational explanation for how and why your god would exist in the first place.

Oh, so that's the problem

.....you actually think we have the ability to convince an unbeliever to become a believer? That cannot happen. Blinded eyes can be opened but only if the heart is receptive. A hardened heart is never going to accept what it doesn't want to.

Spiritual people are born, not made......the "silk purse out of a sow's ear" kinda thing ya know.......

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Just to balance the OP I think we should celebrate all of god's wonderful creations...10 deadly parasites Most disgusting human parasites Some Of The Most Awful Parasites In The World Just accidental? No, god made these things to cause pain and suffering in other organisms because, well...god has a darker side right? Whatever, don't really care, but we should praise god and celebrate all the beauty and creativity of the parasites as much as the cute animals correct? Lamb of god? NADIS - National Animal Disease Information Service - Got that covered.

It wouldn't be a "theist style" post if I didn't throw in a YouTube clip right?

Never mind me people, look at the cute kittens, look at the trees. Aren't they just lurvely? Hoorah for god!