Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

said what?
about dawkins portraying evolution as a simple minded process?
i'll say it again.
his entire argument is a strawman.

Right, so according to you, Professor Dawkins doesn't understand evolution.

evolution is so simple minded that they are still trying to figure it all out 200 years after "the origin".

Ow yes, because in other fields, everything is known instantly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

then by definition, you MUST concede that life is more than the mechanical chemical bonds that comprise it.

Que?

Machines are things that are build and that don't reproduce with modification.

Life is not like that.

Life does reproduce with modification and it does compete for limited resources.

What are you smoking?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You did not.

Not a single biologist or GA specialist would agree with you that the designs produced by a GA are examples of "intelligent design" because "intelligence was used to build the GA".

Which again is not what I claimed.

That is the anti-science rethoric that objects to controlled conditions.
The employed logic is identical to saying that freezers are evidence of intelligent freezing.

False.

GA's are blind in every sense of the word.
GA's are blind watchmakers.

You seriously need to understand that this is no a true depiction of evolution.

For the same reason that the process of evolution is a blind watchmaker

See above.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you aware that you just threw every scientific journal and every scientific paper out the window?

Good job.

Say again that you don't spew anti-science rethoric........

No, that is simply not true.

 

[bhsmte]

Great show folks, keep it up!

 

[Oncedeceived]

The book is filled with intellectual honesty?

THE NERVE!

Let me get this straight then, you claim that it is filled with intellectual honesty when there is no evidence presented for the assertions made in the book but that it claims to refute design due to evolutionary processes producing the illusion of design? Is that what you are trying to tell me?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you aware that you just threw every scientific journal and every scientific paper out the window?

Good job.

Say again that you don't spew anti-science rethoric........

Are you aware that you just threw every scientific journal and every scientific paper out the window?

Good job.

Say again that you don't spew anti-science rethoric........

Here is a peer reviewed paper that doesn't use maybe's, it could happen this way, use your imagination.

http://journal.chemistrycentral.com/content/9/1/36

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, that is simply not true.

yes, it is true.

Every since paper is filled with intellectually honest words like "likely" and "could be" and "might be".

 

[Oncedeceived]

yes, it is true.

Every since paper is filled with intellectually honest words like "likely" and "could be" and "might be".

There might be some of those but there is usually evidence that goes with it.

No evidence. Just stories. If not provide the evidence that Dawkins cites in his book.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let me get this straight then, you claim that it is filled with intellectual honesty when there is no evidence presented for the assertions made in the book but that it claims to refute design due to evolutionary processes producing the illusion of design? Is that what you are trying to tell me?

It's like you believe that the entire book is just the sentence "design is an illusion", repeated a couple thousand times.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

Dawkins, in contrasting the differences between human design and its potential for planning with the workings of natural selection, therefore dubbed evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.

To dispel the idea that complexity cannot arise without the intervention of a "creator", Dawkins uses the example of the eye. Beginning with a simple organism, capable only of distinguishing between light and dark, in only the crudest fashion, he takes the reader through a series of minor modifications, which build in sophistication until we arrive at the elegant and complex mammalian eye. In making this journey, he points to several creatures whose various seeing apparatus are, whilst still useful, living examples of intermediate levels of complexity.

So much for not presenting any examples / evidence in the book.
Perhaps you should read it again (or just read it, full stop )

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here is a peer reviewed paper that doesn't use maybe's, it could happen this way, use your imagination.

http://journal.chemistrycentral.com/content/9/1/36

Lol, that's a research paper that's basically just listing the facts of the study.
This is not a paper attempting to explain a certain phenomena.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which again is not what I claimed.

You did not claim that designs produced by GA's aren't the product of the blind algoritm, because the blind algoritm was implemented by an intelligent programmer?

You change opinions so many times, it's really hard to keep track.

Till this day, I have actually no idea what you do and don't accept concerning evolution theory, for example.

Also, I'm growing a bit tired of running around in circles like this, as you probably already noticed from the reduced lengths of my post.

I feel like I should get a medal or something to put up with it for so long.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There might be some of those but there is usually evidence that goes with it.

No evidence. Just stories. If not provide the evidence that Dawkins cites in his book.

Right, right....
Evolution doesn't have any evidence and Dawkins is a liar or just an idiot.

Got it.

And off course, YOU know better.

 

[whois]

Right, so according to you, Professor Dawkins doesn't understand evolution.



Ow yes, because in other fields, everything is known instantly.

well see, the thing that really irks me about you is, you are completely unwilling to concede there might be an intelligence at work in relation to life.
DNA and its transcription system would almost demand it.
the unsolvable origins of life is another area.
the human brain, heck, even a bats brain is far beyond ANY super computer we can produce.
but yet you can't see any intelligence at work.
i can't, for the like of me, picture any kind of god, but yet i see intelligence in the way life is put together and how it operates.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's like you believe that the entire book is just the sentence "design is an illusion", repeated a couple thousand times.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

Dawkins, in contrasting the differences between human design and its potential for planning with the workings of natural selection, therefore dubbed evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.

To dispel the idea that complexity cannot arise without the intervention of a "creator", Dawkins uses the example of the eye. Beginning with a simple organism, capable only of distinguishing between light and dark, in only the crudest fashion, he takes the reader through a series of minor modifications, which build in sophistication until we arrive at the elegant and complex mammalian eye. In making this journey, he points to several creatures whose various seeing apparatus are, whilst still useful, living examples of intermediate levels of complexity.

So much for not presenting any examples / evidence in the book.
Perhaps you should read it again (or just read it, full stop )

Good...now this is a start. We can look at the actual evidence in this bit of evidence later. Can you supply anything else?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, right....
Evolution doesn't have any evidence and Dawkins is a liar or just an idiot.

Got it.

And off course, YOU know better.

Tsk tsk tsk...straw man much.
I never called Dawkins a liar or an idiot. I never claimed that evolution didn't have any evidence but of course we might have to determine what we mean by evolution.

 

[whois]

Right, right....
Evolution doesn't have any evidence and Dawkins is a liar or just an idiot.

what irony.
roger lewin was called a liar more times than i can count when he penned his article for science.
he was accused of being incompetent, even though he won awards for his science books, even landing a prestigeous position as science editor for science.
he was even accused of misrepresentation.
why?
for publishing the facts in regards to a conference on evolution.
denise noble is another geneticist that was accused of "not knowing anything"
as a matter of fact, almost everyone that ever said anything against darwinism has either retracted or suffered the ire of their peers.

yes, a true fact finding process if i ever seen it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Right, so according to you, Professor Dawkins doesn't understand evolution.



Ow yes, because in other fields, everything is known instantly.

He doesn't. Evolution is whichever story they want to tell on whichever day they tell it. Which one of the 20 different theories is true about how life started? Which particular one do you subscribe to? Or do you choose all of them so that you can change your story day-by-day?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm still trying to figure out what evolutionist's consider a species, since birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are the same species - unless we are talking about Darwin's Finches - than suddenly birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are separate species showing speciation?

 

[crjmurray]

I'm still trying to figure out what evolutionist's consider a species, since birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are the same species - unless we are talking about Darwin's Finches - than suddenly birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are separate species showing speciation?

Yeah man. Birds.