Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Says . . .


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#21 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 September 2017 - 03:33 AM

 

Goku: While there are random components to evolution, and probably in abiogenesis too, the process as a whole is non-random. Something creationists never seem to fully grasp.

 

 

No, not really, and you can bet your life anything you can grasp I can grasp. In fact it's not as simple as evolutionists think, with this random-versus-non-random canard. In fact "random" is defined as "without conscious decision," meaning if evolution is "non-random" that means it is done with conscious decision. Non-random means teleology, that it's done on purpose.

 

In fact, this creationist knows that the only part of evolution which could be argued to strictly be "non-random" is S@xual selection. Natural selection is only the description of differential reproduction, it is a patheticism (to give nature features of sentience), because nobody is there, "selecting" it simply means that naturally some traits are conducive to survival, meaning those with them will survive to reproduce. But the trait must first exist. So a locking mechanism design isn't chosen, it has to be "created", and the random mutations don't "create it" and the selection can only "select" it meaning logically evolution can't create anything.

 

In fact mostly evolution is random, mutations are defined as "random sampling errors", that means that every viably "correct material" in lifeforms would have been given by random mutation. Not just the materials, but in some cases the correct chemicals, for the correct order, for example birds are believed to navigate with the help of tiny magnetic crystals in their beaks. But also the correct designs can only occur if mutations send the correct parts, for example birds have a sophisticated locking mechanism in their toes so they won't fall off their perches at night. What are you saying, that all those without the mechanism, died when they fell off their perches and didn't manage to fly, so selection chose all the ones with locking mechanisms? But what if such a mechanism is a sophisticated design? What about the hooks and barbules, which is a locking mechanism for the feathers. Do we have to believe by faith in evolution, that this was also designed by evolution? Logically the designs of all these things do have to still come about randomly. That is to say - selection might not be random but that doesn't mean that selection created all such designs. The designs themselves are not random, but they are specifically, intentionally designed to solve a problem, to say they aren't is identical to saying that a differential wasn't intentionally designed to solve wheelspin.

 

So even selection itself isn't specific enough, if selection only chooses the ones that survive, that doesn't mean the ones that survive already have a sophisticated design selection can choose. So a coarse selection of "this one is fit", won't lead to something as specific as a cathedral, if a wall is needed to protect. In other words, selection although isn't strictly random, isn't fully non-random either, in that natural selection is only a coarse selector, it cannot "choose" on the level of a teleological agent but the designs in nature are of a level of sophistication which exceeds that which our own teleological agents can create. So natural selection, as a coarse selector, can only "choose" the fit. If that is sufficient then that is like saying that if I randomly buy car parts on Ebay, I only need to "select" the correct ones, in order to build a car, and because the none-selected ones are not chosen, this will be enough to give me the intelligence to create my own car.

 

No indeed - evolution is too random for the sophistication of a sea-anemone dart-eating slug or the Bombardier beetle's chemistry or the clotting cascade. Evolution, is way, way, way more "random" that a purposeful designer, and these lifeforms show purposeful design very clearly, by matching the specific requirements of the necessity.

 

By analogy it's like me saying, "I need to build a car to survive." Now imagine I randomly select items from Ebay, will that enable me to build a Jaguar E-type? No I don't think so - and even if evolution wasn't random, what a WEAK point - that you say that the best "selector" of the designs in nature, isn't teleological, isn't an infinite intelligence that could create all of the millions of viable designs we see with all of the correct components and types of materials and contingencies, but rather selection is an all-powerful, omniscient designer, that if there is a selection pressure that will give you a miraculous design.

 

That's like saying that if there is pressure on me to build a car, the best solution is to randomly order parts from Ebay then when I receive the parts just ditch the ones I don't need and that will be enough to give me the car.

 

No indeed - selection is far, far too weak to account for the miraculously brilliant intelligent in the design of life.

 

 

 

Goku: Lots of things in science sound absurd. A piece of wood is mostly empty space, or that we are zipping thousands of miles an hour around the Sun

 

Yes you've done the whole "false comparison" argument many times, as clever as you think it is, I see it for what it exactly is - a pile of codswallop Goku. For mostly empty space in wood or our zipping through space at speed, is proven, whereas evolution isn't Goku, indeed - it is so far from proven that really you make the contrast very stark by comparing it to things in science which clearly are proven.

 

 

 

Goku: My point is that just saying evolution is absurd, or to frame it in such a way as to make it sound absurd, is not really convincing to me nor any evolutionist here. I don't think I am being too presumptuous here in speaking for evolutionists when I say that the details, as best as we can understand, indicate that evolution is real no matter how one spins them to sound absurd.

 

No, evolution isn't real because evolutionists believe it is, and there isn't one solid argument for macro evolution being real. What is real, is that biomimetics deductively proves that the designs in nature are more intelligent than ours because we steal them. What is real is that there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe that various proteins which just happen to all be homochiral and fold so they have a purpose, together with DNA information and kinesin motors, would construct themselves for no reason. That is about as, "real" as Freddy Krueger. So if you dimwittedly think I am only saying evolution is absurd, then think again - for it is precisely absurd, and a contradiction to believe that all of the millions of viably designed, most sophisticated intelligent designs in existence, created themselves without any intelligence.

 

That is an absolute sham, and all you can do as usual is try to use "other science" to compare it to, and appeal to, "science". Notice the way you don't say, "in evolution theory", no - you have to say, "in science there are lots of things that seem absurd". What a very clear rhetorical device you use there, by appealing to scientific legitimacy, but if you can read english then you will have understood that all such rhetoric was addressed when I said this;

 

"Goku - no amount of science-varnish is going to make this change, ultimately evolution theory, no matter how you argue it, is a farcical falsehood,"

 

 

 

Goku: My point is that just saying evolution is absurd, or to frame it in such a way as to make it sound absurd, is not really convincing to me nor any evolutionist here

 

Again I think this is part of the superiority-complex you have, the rhetorical position of pretending you, the evolutionists the ones that "accept science", are the ones in the know and the ones that need to be convinced and the ones of wisdom.

 

It's patronising the way you say, "lots of things in science" as though you are science, and I need teaching science by you. As though I wouldn't know that a scientific concept can be counter-intuitive. This is all part of the false picture atheists paint, that they are the science people of education and correctness and we pitched against science.

 

What a simplistic argument, for not only do I accept 99.9% of science and could probably beat you on some science tests, but even of the theory of evolution there are facts within such a theory that can be accepted; mutations, selection, genetic drift, gene flow, sympatric and allopatric speciation, different ratios between homozygous and heterozygous genes, changes in the frequencies of alleles, some beneficial mutations such as sickled cells helping to fight malaria, anti-freeze fish.

 

This whole FACADE, that you are science and I am not - is the only game you can play. Think how much trouble you would be in if this forum didn't allow you to use the term, "science" or ever appeal to it in any rhetorical way - you would be like the emperor with no pants, because that is the whole game - this tactic of saying, "we are science, you are opposed to science, this is what science teaches as real and fact".

 

Goku none of that changes the fact that the case for evolution is pitifully pathetic beyond belief. Logically it is a trainwreck I can refute if you give me one hour before a jury. The case for an unlimited intelligent designer on the other hand, is backed up by all of the SCIENTIFIC facts of intelligent design; information, specified complexity, correct materials (what all of them by accidental mutation, millions of them, Lol, and the correct gases for the Bombardier beetle, and the correct chemicals for the clotting cascade? Lol!) viability, irreducible complexity, etc, etc, etc......listen the whole world you say, agrees with you? That's okay because like God has said, "the whole world holds sway" under the power of the enemy - and his deceptive philosophies.

 

That is all evolution is - a philosophy, there are no facts in the physical world to support it, all of the intermediate stages that would have had to exist, simply are not there in the record, like if I insisted I was on CCTV at the time of a crime, and was not found recorded on it.



#22 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 30 September 2017 - 09:18 AM

What is real, is that biomimetics deductively proves that the designs in nature are more intelligent than ours because we steal them.

We steal them because they work better. That something works better doesn't necessarily mean it was the product of more intelligence. We can see this when we use evolutionary algorithms to find new designs for things. The designs aren't better because the algorithm knows more than we do, they're better because they're refined extensively through trial and error.

A lot of the history of medicine is the same thing. Many cures and treatments were found because doctors just tried everything and something ended up working.

#23 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 September 2017 - 09:39 AM

 

 

Popoi: We steal them because they work better. That something works better doesn't necessarily mean it was the product of more intelligence. We can see this when we use evolutionary algorithms to find new designs for things. The designs aren't better because the algorithm knows more than we do, they're better because they're refined extensively through trial and error.

 

What have the algorithms produced, specifically? Randomly shaped aerials which inherently need to be randomly shaped?

 

The point I am making is that the actual designs are better in biomimetics, they plagiarise them because they are smarter.. when you study the design and how certain things are achieved, you are literally seeing how the design is more intelligent. If we look at the Muller cells in the eye, their wide, trumpet like surface at the retina end, means the whole of the surface-area of the retina is covered by the cells so they absorb all of the light the nerve net would stop penetrating. This is the cleverness of the design, because as an idea we see how smart that is. In the very same way if we look at the relationship between the gears on a differential, they're specifically designed so that both wheels can spin at different speeds.

 

Have algorithms designed things like Muller cells then?

 

Basically the more intelligence is added, the more sophisticated a design becomes. We can trace our own history to prove this easily. For example you would never argue that we stand a better chance of creating artificial life if we rewind to 1885, you would definitely say that in future it might be possible, because as we accumulate more knowledge, more original thinkers stand on the giant's shoulders, the more cleverness, the more knowledge, the better the design. To argue that immense intelligence wouldn't be a good cause of immensely intelligent designs in life, is a contradiction. It is the directly correct cause, whereas there is no test that can show that random, intelligentless evolution could do it. Yet we have proof in our world every day, that intelligence is the cause of intelligent design.

 

I can't imagine how anyone could argue that less intelligence would be a good cause of more intelligent design. What are you saying, that to become a millionaire inventor I just need to be more stupid? Where are all the new designs algorithms are creating by the way? 

 

 

 

Popoi: The designs aren't better because the algorithm knows more than we do, they're better because they're refined extensively through trial and error.

 

Nice try but that's a strawman and a bait-and-switch fallacy, sometimes it isn't more knowledge needed but more cleverness. You can be more clever than someone else and have less knowledge. The algorithm itself is an intelligently designed thing. Trials by vast numbers running through a computer - that's all intelligence. 

 

An algorithm is something which is designed to do a job better than we can because it is specifically designed to do that one thing. In the same way a calculator can calculate a sum faster than we can but only because intelligence created it to do that thing. What you actually need to show is that natural selection and mutations can create specifically ingenious designs. Programming a computer to do something then saying this means evolution done it, is absurd.

 

Can an algorithm create something which can reproduce itself or go through metamorphosis? I don't see any algorithms from evolution creating designs on that level, but that is what we find in life. So I would like to see your proof that algorithms of evolution are designing things on the level of ID in life. Hitting upon a "correct" shape because a computer can rifle through many shapes, for example, isn't the logical equivalent of macro-evolution. Macro evolution is not an algorithm searching for a desired end, as it has no prescience. 

 

 

 

at each iteration (generation) a certain portion of the population of potential solutions is deliberately selected by the agent experimenter (artificial selection) to “breed” a new generation. The optimized solution was purposefully pursued at each iteration. The overall process was entirely goaldirected (formal). Real evolution has no goal [refs.]. Fourth, a formal fitness function is used to define and measure the fittest solutions thus far to a certain formal problem. The act of defining and measuring, along with just about everything else in the GA procedure, is altogether formal, not physical [refs.].
Despite the appealing similarities of terms like “chromosomes”, GAs have no relevance whatsoever to molecular evolution or gene emergence. Inanimate nature cannot define a fitness function over measures of the quality of representations of solutions. GAs are no model at all of natural process.

https://creation.com...nt-to-evolution

 

(I think you are muddying-the-water by bringing algorithms into the discussion, this has no baring on the fact that the designs in nature are smarter, and we can infer this by seeing how clever the specific solutions are, to obscure problems. To say this could not be caused by more intelligence/knowledge, is a contradiction, when they show superior intelligence in how ingenious the ideas are that solve the problems. There is no rational reason to ever suppose mutation mistakes and a course selector, could ever come up with so much as a deformed, dead dog.)



#24 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 September 2017 - 11:35 AM

We steal them because they work better. That something works better doesn't necessarily mean it was the product of more intelligence. We can see this when we use evolutionary algorithms to find new designs for things. The designs aren't better because the algorithm knows more than we do, they're better because they're refined extensively through trial and error.

invalid analogy.
It is important to be clear about common, though not necessarily universal, assumptions of mid-20th Century biology that have been discarded. A partial listing would include at least the following:
. . .
5. Given the adaptive nature of each organism and cell, their machinery can be modeled using principles of efficient design.
- The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm

#25 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 30 September 2017 - 01:45 PM

The point I am making is that the actual designs are better in biomimetics, they plagiarise them because they are smarter.. when you study the design and how certain things are achieved, you are literally seeing how the design is more intelligent.

They aren’t mimicked because they’re smarter, they’re mimicked because they work better. We might be able to say that we wouldn’t have thought of designing things that way, but that doesn’t prove that such a solution couldn’t have been arrived at through trial and error.

Basically the more intelligence is added, the more sophisticated a design becomes. We can trace our own history to prove this easily. For example you would never argue that we stand a better chance of creating artificial life if we rewind to 1885, you would definitely say that in future it might be possible, because as we accumulate more knowledge, more original thinkers stand on the giant's shoulders, the more cleverness, the more knowledge, the better the design.

As a general trend that’s true, but a general trend isn’t sufficient to conclude that a well functioning system can only have been designed.

To argue that immense intelligence wouldn't be a good cause of immensely intelligent designs in life, is a contradiction.

Nobody said immense intelligence couldn’t cause good designs.

What I said was immense intelligence isn’t the only possible cause of well functioning systems in life.

I can't imagine how anyone could argue that less intelligence would be a good cause of more intelligent design. What are you saying, that to become a millionaire inventor I just need to be more stupid? Where are all the new designs algorithms are creating by the way? 

Nobody said less intelligence necessarily leads to better design.

What I said was that a better design isn’t necessarily the result of a more intelligent designer. Trial and error has proven to be a very successful method for solving all sorts of problems.

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]Nice try but that's a strawman and a bait-and-switch fallacy, sometimes it isn't more knowledge needed but more cleverness. You can be more clever than someone else and have less knowledge. The algorithm itself is an intelligently designed thing. Trials by vast numbers running through a computer - that's all intelligence. 

This is getting in to the same problem as “Oh you did abiogenesis in the lab? Was that lab designed by intelligent scientists? Checkmate.” Intelligence goes in to creating the simulation and setting the parameters for success, but not in to the specific changes that are made in each generation. The design is created without “Intelligence” in the sense we would mean it if the product was intentionally designed, which is to say domain specific knowledge used to make design choices.

Macro evolution is not an algorithm searching for a desired end, as it has no prescience. 

It’s doesn’t, but it does have selection pressures on populations that influence which changes are retained.

#26 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 September 2017 - 05:24 PM

What I said was immense intelligence isn’t the only possible cause of well functioning systems in life.

then what is the cause popoi?
keep in mind that there is no evidence that natural selection is the cause of the complexity we see in life.

without natural selection, the gradualist paradigm is simply sunk.

the only other alternative is that this "intelligence" (information) is already present in the cell.
when we add epigentics and transposons, it becomes clear that this complexity arises from a sandbox concept.
my thinking along these lines must be correct, because i was also able to deduce a restart scenario from it, which later proved to be true.

throw that modern synthesis out the window popoi, it's preventing you from seeing evolution as it actually is.

#27 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 30 September 2017 - 07:41 PM

 

There may have been some kind of 'natural selection' of sorts. For example the chirality of amino acids forming chains may have favored 'left handedness' due to a combination of things like small preferences for handedness in various chemical/physical reactions being magnified, and how amino acid chains work better when the chirality is the same.
 
Or the number of lipids present in a primitive cell membrane partially controls the membrane's permeability, and the permeability of such membranes was certainly an important element in keeping and retaining various molecules from its environment.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but the flippant way in which the OP was written indicates to me that this kind of stuff was not being alluded to; a bunch of sludge in a pond in which nothing chemically important or interesting would happen.

why on earth would you believe "nothing chemically important" would happen in a pond of sludge?
would it help if i said instead "under optimal favorable conditions starting with already purified ingredients".
it isn't a stretch for me to assume science has already tried that route.

Of course the way What If worded the OP was to make it sound absurd; that was the clear point of the epithet and the flippant tone.

wait a minute.
isn't that what MUST happen?
evolution REQUIRES it.
and i'll agree, it DOES sound absurd.
it's the most absurd thing i've ever heard, other than the god concept.
so, if abiogenesis is impossible then we are faced with the irrational.
 

My point is that just saying evolution is absurd, or to frame it in such a way as to make it sound absurd, is not really convincing to me nor any evolutionist here.

it wasn't meant to convince you of anything except it's absurdity.
and the ONLY reason you don't want to entertain that thought is, the alternative is even more absurd.
kiss me, and let's dance.
yeah, it's making me crazy.

I don't think I am being too presumptuous here in speaking for evolutionists when I say that the details, as best as we can understand, indicate that evolution is real no matter how one spins them to sound absurd.

i'll agree, evolution in some form is a reality, but it isn't darwinian.
the question of how it all started is one giant question mark.
and yes, that pond of sludge HAD to amass data (information) to become the first cell.

 

 

I agree on the surface it does sound absurd. My response is that there are many things we know to be true from science that do sound absurd on the surface, and I mentioned a few of those last post. Of course this doesn't mean abiogenesis and evolution is true - that would be absurd. But, I think it acts as a quick reminder that just because the sound-bite is framed as an absurdity is not a guarantee that the underlying sentiment is absurd or false.

 

I don't think abiogenesis is impossible at all. Yes we currently don't have a complete outline with all major steps/barriers accounted for, but at the same token it is an extremely complicated problem. In the big picture scientists have only begun to wrap their heads around the complex nature of the issue. I know you like to quote people from half a century ago saying that we would have solved abiogenesis by now, and because we aren't close the probability of abiogenesis ever happening is approaching zero. However, on the contrary, I think it demonstrates just how little the scientists knew about the issues of abiogenesis back in the day. IOW scientists have only recently begun to truly understand the problems of abiogenesis; to make big statements like 'it is impossible' seems premature.

 

We also need to distinguish between the process itself, and our human understanding of the process; just because we humans don't understand it doesn't mean nature can't make it happen. I think there are signs all around the universe that point to abiogenesis as a possibility. We see water, amino acids, long carbon chain molecules, and nucelobases (components of DNA) out in space. Life could indeed be rare with abiogenesis a slim chance, but the basic components seem to be everywhere, and given how many stars/planets/moons there are even rare events can happen.



#28 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 September 2017 - 10:50 PM

I agree on the surface it does sound absurd. My response is that there are many things we know to be true from science that do sound absurd on the surface, and I mentioned a few of those last post. Of course this doesn't mean abiogenesis and evolution is true - that would be absurd. But, I think it acts as a quick reminder that just because the sound-bite is framed as an absurdity is not a guarantee that the underlying sentiment is absurd or false.

it's not only absurd goku, it's downright laughable.
and you'll notice i didn't cloud the issue or twist the meaning of words.

I don't think abiogenesis is impossible at all. Yes we currently don't have a complete outline with all major steps/barriers accounted for, but at the same token it is an extremely complicated problem. In the big picture scientists have only begun to wrap their heads around the complex nature of the issue. I know you like to quote people from half a century ago saying that we would have solved abiogenesis by now, and because we aren't close the probability of abiogenesis ever happening is approaching zero. However, on the contrary, I think it demonstrates just how little the scientists knew about the issues of abiogenesis back in the day. IOW scientists have only recently begun to truly understand the problems of abiogenesis; to make big statements like 'it is impossible' seems premature.

i've read a number of resources on the topic, most acknowledge the research but aren't too optimistic on the outcome.
one source, which i haven't read yet, apparently says there is a ZERO chance for a replicative organism.
at least one researcher has used the phrase "a seeming miracle" to describe the arrival of life.
this does not sound promising.
 

We also need to distinguish between the process itself, and our human understanding of the process; just because we humans don't understand it doesn't mean nature can't make it happen. I think there are signs all around the universe that point to abiogenesis as a possibility. We see water, amino acids, long carbon chain molecules, and nucelobases (components of DNA) out in space. Life could indeed be rare with abiogenesis a slim chance, but the basic components seem to be everywhere, and given how many stars/planets/moons there are even rare events can happen.

rare?
are you kidding me?
there are 10^80 atoms in the universe (or so they say)
science has estimated the creation of life at one chance in 10^520
i'm sure we can haggle over the numbers, but the fact is, it doesn't seem promising.

#29 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 October 2017 - 03:56 AM

There may have been some kind of 'natural selection' of sorts. For example the chirality of amino acids forming chains may have favored 'left handedness' due to a combination of things like small preferences for handedness in various chemical/physical reactions being magnified, and how amino acid chains work better when the chirality is the same.
 
Or the number of lipids present in a primitive cell membrane partially controls the membrane's permeability, and the permeability of such membranes was certainly an important element in keeping and retaining various molecules from its environment.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but the flippant way in which the OP was written indicates to me that this kind of stuff was not being alluded to; a bunch of sludge in a pond in which nothing chemically important or interesting would happen.

why on earth would you believe "nothing chemically important" would happen in a pond of sludge?
would it help if i said instead "under optimal favorable conditions starting with already purified ingredients".
it isn't a stretch for me to assume science has already tried that route.

Of course the way What If worded the OP was to make it sound absurd; that was the clear point of the epithet and the flippant tone.

wait a minute.
isn't that what MUST happen?
evolution REQUIRES it.
and i'll agree, it DOES sound absurd.
it's the most absurd thing i've ever heard, other than the god concept.
so, if abiogenesis is impossible then we are faced with the irrational.
 

My point is that just saying evolution is absurd, or to frame it in such a way as to make it sound absurd, is not really convincing to me nor any evolutionist here.

it wasn't meant to convince you of anything except it's absurdity.
and the ONLY reason you don't want to entertain that thought is, the alternative is even more absurd.
kiss me, and let's dance.
yeah, it's making me crazy.

I don't think I am being too presumptuous here in speaking for evolutionists when I say that the details, as best as we can understand, indicate that evolution is real no matter how one spins them to sound absurd.

i'll agree, evolution in some form is a reality, but it isn't darwinian.
the question of how it all started is one giant question mark.
and yes, that pond of sludge HAD to amass data (information) to become the first cell.
 
I agree on the surface it does sound absurd. My response is that there are many things we know to be true from science that do sound absurd on the surface, and I mentioned a few of those last post. Of course this doesn't mean abiogenesis and evolution is true - that would be absurd. But, I think it acts as a quick reminder that just because the sound-bite is framed as an absurdity is not a guarantee that the underlying sentiment is absurd or false.
 
I don't think abiogenesis is impossible at all. Yes we currently don't have a complete outline with all major steps/barriers accounted for, but at the same token it is an extremely complicated problem. In the big picture scientists have only begun to wrap their heads around the complex nature of the issue. I know you like to quote people from half a century ago saying that we would have solved abiogenesis by now, and because we aren't close the probability of abiogenesis ever happening is approaching zero. However, on the contrary, I think it demonstrates just how little the scientists knew about the issues of abiogenesis back in the day. IOW scientists have only recently begun to truly understand the problems of abiogenesis; to make big statements like 'it is impossible' seems premature.
 
We also need to distinguish between the process itself, and our human understanding of the process; just because we humans don't understand it doesn't mean nature can't make it happen. I think there are signs all around the universe that point to abiogenesis as a possibility. We see water, amino acids, long carbon chain molecules, and nucelobases (components of DNA) out in space. Life could indeed be rare with abiogenesis a slim chance, but the basic components seem to be everywhere, and given how many stars/planets/moons there are even rare events can happen.

"I don't think abiogenesis is impossible at all."

Then you arent really being intellectually honest with yourself..

#30 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 01 October 2017 - 05:31 AM

No, not really, and you can bet your life anything you can grasp I can grasp. In fact it's not as simple as evolutionists think, with this random-versus-non-random canard. In fact "random" is defined as "without conscious decision," meaning if evolution is "non-random" that means it is done with conscious decision. Non-random means teleology, that it's done on purpose.

 

I didn't say that you can't grasp it, but the whole 'evolution is random' therefore it is silly to think anything meaningful can come of it, is a PRATT through and through.

 

By your definition of random, when I drop a ball it is random that the ball goes to the ground. There was no conscious choice or decision for the ball to go to the ground, therefore it is random despite that it will always go to the ground due to gravity (unless an overriding force intervenes). Physics is random. Chemistry is random. At best it renders the word useless in this context; everything in science is random; it is random that the Sun will come up tomorrow morning.

 

I haven't read through your new random thread yet, but I noticed your definition "without method or conscious decision", and I think the "or" is telling. The without method part seems a descent enough starting point. For example finding the path of a ball can be calculated based on physics; the method is analogous to the forces involved. In terms of evolution there is a method to natural selection even though it is not a conscious selection; whatever gives you (or more precisely your species) more viable offspring.

 

In fact, this creationist knows that the only part of evolution which could be argued to strictly be "non-random" is S@xual selection. Natural selection is only the description of differential reproduction, it is a patheticism (to give nature features of sentience), because nobody is there, "selecting" it simply means that naturally some traits are conducive to survival, meaning those with them will survive to reproduce. But the trait must first exist. So a locking mechanism design isn't chosen, it has to be "created", and the random mutations don't "create it" and the selection can only "select" it meaning logically evolution can't create anything.

 

In fact mostly evolution is random, mutations are defined as "random sampling errors", that means that every viably "correct material" in lifeforms would have been given by random mutation. Not just the materials, but in some cases the correct chemicals, for the correct order, for example birds are believed to navigate with the help of tiny magnetic crystals in their beaks. But also the correct designs can only occur if mutations send the correct parts, for example birds have a sophisticated locking mechanism in their toes so they won't fall off their perches at night. What are you saying, that all those without the mechanism, died when they fell off their perches and didn't manage to fly, so selection chose all the ones with locking mechanisms? But what if such a mechanism is a sophisticated design? What about the hooks and barbules, which is a locking mechanism for the feathers. Do we have to believe by faith in evolution, that this was also designed by evolution? Logically the designs of all these things do have to still come about randomly. That is to say - selection might not be random but that doesn't mean that selection created all such designs. The designs themselves are not random, but they are specifically, intentionally designed to solve a problem, to say they aren't is identical to saying that a differential wasn't intentionally designed to solve wheelspin.

 

So even selection itself isn't specific enough, if selection only chooses the ones that survive, that doesn't mean the ones that survive already have a sophisticated design selection can choose. So a coarse selection of "this one is fit", won't lead to something as specific as a cathedral, if a wall is needed to protect. In other words, selection although isn't strictly random, isn't fully non-random either, in that natural selection is only a coarse selector, it cannot "choose" on the level of a teleological agent but the designs in nature are of a level of sophistication which exceeds that which our own teleological agents can create. So natural selection, as a coarse selector, can only "choose" the fit. If that is sufficient then that is like saying that if I randomly buy car parts on Ebay, I only need to "select" the correct ones, in order to build a car, and because the none-selected ones are not chosen, this will be enough to give me the intelligence to create my own car.

 

No indeed - evolution is too random for the sophistication of a sea-anemone dart-eating slug or the Bombardier beetle's chemistry or the clotting cascade. Evolution, is way, way, way more "random" that a purposeful designer, and these lifeforms show purposeful design very clearly, by matching the specific requirements of the necessity.

 

Natural selection is part of evolution, not just the random mutations. Random errors combined with selection can and do produce results. Genetic algorithms are a great example of this, and they've been used a myriad of fields. GA's work best when there is a large solution space to work with where things like creativity are an asset. Of course they are not 'creative' in a conscious sense, but their ability to use trial and error, and perhaps ironically without the preconceived bias that a given solution line won't work that a conscious being might have, they can give off the illusion of creativity.

 

As for GA's not producing solutions as exquisitely complex as life, keep in mind that life has had a good 3.5 billion years (maybe even 4.0+ billion) with innumerable specimens to 'run the program' in a manner of speaking, and they are working with many more variables and potential solution spaces than any GA.

 

No one is saying GA's are a perfect analogue to biological evolution or biological systems etc, but what they do is clearly show that descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction (the essence of evolution) produces complex and creative solutions that often go beyond the normal scope of human thought. IOW this is a direct answer to the idea that it is impossible for the tools available to evolution to produce the type of solutions you bring up.

 

Also keep in mind that in biological evolution many features are exaptations; traits that serve one function that are then evolved to serve a different function. Feathers, as a quick example, were undoubtedly not originally used for flight, but perhaps were used for insulation or even a courtship display or something (maybe both). So feathers need not have been analogously given the goal of flight initially.

 

You are correct that evolution needs to work with what it already has. This is why people bring up things like the laryngeal nerve in giraffes and its' twisted pathway starting in the brain and ending at the larynx while looping around the heart. Earlier in the evolution the nerve was not as long and a loop around the heart wasn't so out of the way (in fish there is no loop around the heart), but as the neck grew evolution couldn't redo the pathway so it came up with 'clever' ways around the problem, and of course creationists now point to these 'creative engineering feats' to offset the odd design as evidence of intelligent design. It is cases like this that I think they miss the forest for the trees.

 

By analogy it's like me saying, "I need to build a car to survive." Now imagine I randomly select items from Ebay, will that enable me to build a Jaguar E-type? No I don't think so - and even if evolution wasn't random, what a WEAK point - that you say that the best "selector" of the designs in nature, isn't teleological, isn't an infinite intelligence that could create all of the millions of viable designs we see with all of the correct components and types of materials and contingencies, but rather selection is an all-powerful, omniscient designer, that if there is a selection pressure that will give you a miraculous design.

 

That's like saying that if there is pressure on me to build a car, the best solution is to randomly order parts from Ebay then when I receive the parts just ditch the ones I don't need and that will be enough to give me the car.

 

No indeed - selection is far, far too weak to account for the miraculously brilliant intelligent in the design of life.

 

As the analogy goes, I bet after several billion years of buying random car parts you would have one amazing and unique car.

 

Yes you've done the whole "false comparison" argument many times, as clever as you think it is, I see it for what it exactly is - a pile of codswallop Goku. For mostly empty space in wood or our zipping through space at speed, is proven, whereas evolution isn't Goku, indeed - it is so far from proven that really you make the contrast very stark by comparing it to things in science which clearly are proven.

 

The point is that those things are known to be true yet they sound absurd on the surface; IOW just because something in science sounds absurd is not a guarantee that it is false.

 

So when doubters make sound-bites describing evolution/abiogenesis in absurd ways I see it as nothing more than a rhetorical trick. Argumentum ad absurdum is a valid form of argumentation, but it is also incredibly hard to do it properly due to nuances. At the end of the day 'sludge to astronaut' is not necessarily incorrect, but I don't find it a convincing argumentum ad absurdum for reasons already stated in the thread.

 

No, evolution isn't real because evolutionists believe it is, and there isn't one solid argument for macro evolution being real. What is real, is that biomimetics deductively proves that the designs in nature are more intelligent than ours because we steal them. What is real is that there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe that various proteins which just happen to all be homochiral and fold so they have a purpose, together with DNA information and kinesin motors, would construct themselves for no reason. That is about as, "real" as Freddy Krueger. So if you dimwittedly think I am only saying evolution is absurd, then think again - for it is precisely absurd, and a contradiction to believe that all of the millions of viably designed, most sophisticated intelligent designs in existence, created themselves without any intelligence.

 

That is an absolute sham, and all you can do as usual is try to use "other science" to compare it to, and appeal to, "science". Notice the way you don't say, "in evolution theory", no - you have to say, "in science there are lots of things that seem absurd". What a very clear rhetorical device you use there, by appealing to scientific legitimacy, but if you can read english then you will have understood that all such rhetoric was addressed when I said this;

 

"Goku - no amount of science-varnish is going to make this change, ultimately evolution theory, no matter how you argue it, is a farcical falsehood,"

I don't have to use 'other science', but it is a quick and dirty way to get at the heart of your rhetorical claim. I believe it was Gould that outlined the three pillars of evidence for macro evolution. First is that we observe micro evolution in the present (I know this doesn't demonstrate macro evolution, but if I can say I can walk 100 miles a cursory question would be can I walk at all). The second is similarities in organisms today which include physical characteristics and genetics, and the third is the fossil record itself with the star in this category being transitional fossils.

 

Of course entire multiple threads have been dedicated to the above, and for brevity in an already long post I'll leave it at that for now.

 

Again I think this is part of the superiority-complex you have, the rhetorical position of pretending you, the evolutionists the ones that "accept science", are the ones in the know and the ones that need to be convinced and the ones of wisdom.

 

It's patronising the way you say, "lots of things in science" as though you are science, and I need teaching science by you. As though I wouldn't know that a scientific concept can be counter-intuitive. This is all part of the false picture atheists paint, that they are the science people of education and correctness and we pitched against science.

 

What a simplistic argument, for not only do I accept 99.9% of science and could probably beat you on some science tests, but even of the theory of evolution there are facts within such a theory that can be accepted; mutations, selection, genetic drift, gene flow, sympatric and allopatric speciation, different ratios between homozygous and heterozygous genes, changes in the frequencies of alleles, some beneficial mutations such as sickled cells helping to fight malaria, anti-freeze fish.

 

This whole FACADE, that you are science and I am not - is the only game you can play. Think how much trouble you would be in if this forum didn't allow you to use the term, "science" or ever appeal to it in any rhetorical way - you would be like the emperor with no pants, because that is the whole game - this tactic of saying, "we are science, you are opposed to science, this is what science teaches as real and fact".

 

Goku none of that changes the fact that the case for evolution is pitifully pathetic beyond belief. Logically it is a trainwreck I can refute if you give me one hour before a jury. The case for an unlimited intelligent designer on the other hand, is backed up by all of the SCIENTIFIC facts of intelligent design; information, specified complexity, correct materials (what all of them by accidental mutation, millions of them, Lol, and the correct gases for the Bombardier beetle, and the correct chemicals for the clotting cascade? Lol!) viability, irreducible complexity, etc, etc, etc......listen the whole world you say, agrees with you? That's okay because like God has said, "the whole world holds sway" under the power of the enemy - and his deceptive philosophies.

 

That is all evolution is - a philosophy, there are no facts in the physical world to support it, all of the intermediate stages that would have had to exist, simply are not there in the record, like if I insisted I was on CCTV at the time of a crime, and was not found recorded on it.

 

 

Don't we all have a speck of the superiority complex when in a debate forum? Unless you come completely uniformed chances are you have some view you think is correct, and only if the other side knew and experienced what you know and have experienced they would agree with you.

 

All I was saying is that for evolutionists who participate on this site, reducing evolution to 'sludge to astronaut' is not convincing because our understanding of the details makes that reduction plausible in our minds (I don't know what Piasan's view of abiogenesis is, but at the very least I suspect if science came out with a verified solution he would accept it as a possible method God used to create). Similar to a piece of wood being mostly empty space is absurd but we all know better; of course it is not a perfect analogy but what do you want me to do, chose something absurd that we all know to be false? - in order for the analogy to work it needs to be something we can all agree upon.

 

This doesn't mean that our understanding of the details is correct; in a sense we all live by the illusion we have created out of our assumptions, perceived knowledge, and experience.

 

Many things in science are counter-intuitive as you mentioned, and given the complexity of life and whatnot is it no surprise that the best scientific explanation is counter-intuitive?

 

I know you like to say that evolution has no evidence to support it, but that is simply not true. This is a long post and many things have already been brought up, so for the time being I'll chalk it up to a difference of opinion.



#31 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 October 2017 - 07:52 AM

 

see that pond of sludge over there?
you mark my word, one of these days it will have amassed enough data that it will chart a course and then fly it to the moon and back.

you get the feeling that this might be impossible.

i agree with one of blitz's sources "all evolution is, is a working hypothesis" (paraphrased).

 

I'll just point out that the theory of evolution deals with life evolving into other types of life; not sludge turning into life.

 

At the most basic level evolution is descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction. A pile of sludge does none of those things.

 

While Darwin dealt mostly with the Evolution of present life forms from some hypothetical ancestors, Evolution isn't exclusively dealing with the origin of species, but also with how non-life matter turns into living beings. You can even take that further towards the origin of the Universe. 



#32 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 October 2017 - 11:39 AM

goku,

Similar to a piece of wood being mostly empty space is absurd but we all know better; of course it is not a perfect analogy but what do you want me to do, chose something absurd that we all know to be false? - in order for the analogy to work it needs to be something we can all agree upon.

tell me, how is the phrase "sludge to astronauts" patently false?
the above is no different than "iron ore to engine blocks".

as a skeptic, i want to know how the former happened, and apparently so does a whole slew of people.

the latter requires manufacturing equipment (which was designed and built by intelligence) to turn that ore into an engine block (which itself was designed).

there is no doubt that the cell is a "manufacturer" of genetic sequences.
the above REQUIRES information, and i honestly believe it's this acquisition that will break the back of abiogenesis.

there is little doubt in my mind that science will be able to duplicate the cell in a lab setting, but will be completely unable to rationalize how it could happen in nature, simply because they can't explain how the information came together in the first place.

the problem isn't about atoms/ molecules, but of information.

i'm also skeptical if we are being given all the facts.
it could be the cell arrived here complete, and viruses are the result of that cell.
IOW, we didn't go from viruses to cell, but of cell to viruses.
genomes often evolve with a decreasing fitness

you are correct though, the word "absurd" is not to be taken as any kind of evidence or proof.

#33 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 October 2017 - 10:14 AM

 

Goku: I didn't say that you can't grasp it, but the whole 'evolution is random' therefore it is silly to think anything meaningful can come of it, is a PRATT through and through.

 

By your definition of random, when I drop a ball it is random that the ball goes to the ground. There was no conscious choice or decision for the ball to go to the ground, therefore it is random despite that it will always go to the ground due to gravity (unless an overriding force intervenes). Physics is random. Chemistry is random. At best it renders the word useless in this context; everything in science is random; it is random that the Sun will come up tomorrow morning.

 

I haven't read through your new random thread yet, but I noticed your definition "without method or conscious decision", and I think the "or" is telling. The without method part seems a descent enough starting point. For example finding the path of a ball can be calculated based on physics; the method is analogous to the forces involved. In terms of evolution there is a method to natural selection even though it is not a conscious selection; whatever gives you (or more precisely your species) more viable offspring.

 

No it's not a PRATT, the argument evolution is only partially random is a PRATT which has little meaning. You said mostly evolution is non-random, it can be shown easily that mostly evolution is random.

 

Think how many random occurrences are involved. "Natural selection" is a misleading term because there isn't any literal selection. That is to say, if Johnny gets a gene conducive to survival, and he gets hit by a car, then Bob marries his would-be wife instead, then Bob, without the gene, passes it on. This is random, there is no pattern to that example.

 

Sure, in some tenuous way you can say that all the fittest genes get passed on and that isn't random, but it's based mostly on random things. The mutation itself is a mistake, it is random, there is actually software to repair mutations, but it isn't just the mutation that is random but the individual it happens to. Also, the environment the individual is in, is random. That means that if someone with sickled cells in Africa, more likely passes on their genes, the same thing would not happen in the UK or the US. 

 

My question to you is this, if some small feature of evolution is non-random, in that there is a pattern to those that tend to reproduce, how would that equate to the level of teleology in any given specimen, anyway?

 

Just admit it, it's an attempt to say that, "evolution can also give you designs with clear purpose because it isn't fully random".

 

But evolution largely is random. The level of teleology in life, is met certainly by the most non-random of things, which is a person's deliberately purposeful act. Therefore an attempt to make evolution fit the bill, falls short IMHO, because it would be like saying that the average person stands a better chance of running faster than Usain Bolt, than an an experienced athlete that has run the 100 metres in many professional events.

 

 

 

Goku: By your definition of random, when I drop a ball it is random that the ball goes to the ground. There was no conscious choice or decision for the ball to go to the ground.

 

I am not sure why you would think that. In this instance dropping the ball was purposeful or random. If it was accidental it was random, if it was on purpose it wasn't random because the moment was chosen on purpose. If you did not aim where it was dropped where it landed is somewhat random.

 

That's why people say, "random violence", the violence part is intentional but there is no motive to kill a specific person. If I went outside into the street and started punching people, any person I first saw, is there any meaningful "non-random" aspect to it, if it is always the first person I see?

 

In the same way there is no meaningful "non-random" aspect to natural selection in the sense that it is tautological that the fittest genes will always be chosen but it is random because it doesn't matter which genes, there is no pattern, if a gene is helpful in Africa it's chosen, if it's not in the UK, it isn't. 

 

So then if I punched anyone I met, it would be random violence and there would perhaps be a very tenuous, very weak, very insignificant "non-random" aspect to it, in that it would always be the first person I meet. But like with evolution, it doesn't matter which person the first person is, so it is still random. So then that a sickle cell is "selected" in Africa where Malaria is present, doesn't mean it was a non-random choice, because had there randomly happened to not be a malaria problem, it wouldn't get chosen. It just so happened randomly that the place did have malaria, and it just so happened randomly that the first person I would punch would be Dawkins. 

 

;)

 

Conclusion: All I am really saying is the "non-random" part of evolution if there is such a part, is almost totally inconsequential. The only pattern you can really say is there is the fittest genes are always selected, when fit in a particular environment. Tautologies are notorious for not really telling us much, since anything conducive to staying alive is going to be helpful to things which are alive (life) then really this, "pattern" is superbly insignificant. Is it superbly non-random that lifeforms more fit for life, would tend to reproduce? I am not so sure it is even necessary to bring in the term "non-random" for such a thing, given it is surrounded, as I have shown, by so many random factors.



#34 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 October 2017 - 10:30 AM

 

 

What If: you are correct though, the word "absurd" is not to be taken as any kind of evidence or proof. 

 

Nor would I claim that. If I call something absurd it's because there is no rational reason to believe it would happen. I have no rational reason to ever believe abiogenesis/evolution would ever happen, for why on earth would I believe that would bring us millions of viable, sophisticated, intelligently designed things without any of them being even close to poor design? For it to then leave no evidence of it's trial-and-error failures in design but only leave a record of even more viably perfect designs in history is more absurd, but to then look at the earliest creatures of the Cambrian and also see they were completely viable is even more absurd, for the trilobite's eye was one of the most sophisticated designs ever made. Several physical laws have to be understood just to understand why. 

 

Why would I believe life, which is miraculous, creative and designed and over-qualified in every way, would, for no reason, construct itself into a fictional type of cell, then that cell which we have never found would then lead to everything we have today, from giraffes to trees to bad arguments?

 

So in every rational way, that is absurd to me. So then what is a comparison? A comparison, an equal comparison, is to ask me to believe that superman was responsible for all of the people miraculously saved in disasters, without any direct evidence a "superman" can exist, just like there is no direct evidence a pre-cell could ever exist.

 

So I am more than fair - just demonstrate evolution to convince me of it, the same as I would request the person claiming to be superman to give me a demonstration.

 

You can read this thread if you want to understand more. (message one)http://evolutionfair...claim +superman



#35 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 October 2017 - 11:02 AM

Natural selection is part of evolution, not just the random mutations. Random errors combined with selection can and do produce results. Genetic algorithms are a great example of this, and they've been used a myriad of fields. GA's work best when there is a large solution space to work with where things like creativity are an asset. Of course they are not 'creative' in a conscious sense, but their ability to use trial and error, and perhaps ironically without the preconceived bias that a given solution line won't work that a conscious being might have, they can give off the illusion of creativity.

except for one thing.
the above does not apply to evolution.
as per my post 24.
the cells machinery cannot be modeled by algorithms of efficient design.
this concept has been discarded.

#36 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 October 2017 - 11:50 AM

GAs are goal-orientated, intelligently designed things with objectives. Not at all equivalent to mindless evolution. What have they made anyway? There are many logical differences between the two which are ignored by evolutionists. Evolution has no prescience, an algorithm is programmed to do things.

 

GAs are a bait-and-switch fallacy, they don't example evolution in biological things. You get baited with evolution then they switch evolution to an algorithm, but there is no scientific test which proves the two are anything like the same thing, only an assumption they are. 

 

In other words, you have to back up what you say - just saying things about algorithms won't convince me that evolution done these things, because algorithms did.



#37 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 02 October 2017 - 12:40 PM

Think how many random occurrences are involved. "Natural selection" is a misleading term because there isn't any literal selection. That is to say, if Johnny gets a gene conducive to survival, and he gets hit by a car, then Bob marries his would-be wife instead, then Bob, without the gene, passes it on. This is random, there is no pattern to that example.

Generally you can't find a pattern in one example. If you look at a whole population, a Johnny-type would be more likely to survive and breed than a Bob-type, which can result in the mutation being spread through the population.

My question to you is this, if some small feature of evolution is non-random, in that there is a pattern to those that tend to reproduce, how would that equate to the level of teleology in any given specimen, anyway?

My answer would be that teleology isn't really, it's your cognitive bias being imposed.

A small bias in an otherwise random process can produce a very significant difference in outcome over time, particularly if there's any sort of cumulative aspect to the process. That's the main objection with characterizing evolution as "random". It's attempting to play up the elements that by themselves wouldn't result in any long term change, and downplay or ignore entirely the bias that filters those changes to produce something very different in the long term.

The games in a casino are based on almost entirely random processes, but a lot of people have made a lot of money exploiting relatively small statistical advantages, to such an extent as to create the idiom "the house always wins". They don't always win of course, but they tend to over time.
 

But evolution largely is random. The level of teleology in life, is met certainly by the most non-random of things, which is a person's deliberately purposeful act. Therefore an attempt to make evolution fit the bill, falls short IMHO, because it would be like saying that the average person stands a better chance of running faster than Usain Bolt, than an an experienced athlete that has run the 100 metres in many professional events.

Sure, if Usain Bolt's existence wasn't directly proven and supernatural feats were being attributed to him.

You know, sort of like the thing you declared would be absurd just a post later:

So in every rational way, that is absurd to me. So then what is a comparison? A comparison, an equal comparison, is to ask me to believe that superman was responsible for all of the people miraculously saved in disasters, without any direct evidence a "superman" can exist, just like there is no direct evidence a pre-cell could ever exist.

That's why people say, "random violence", the violence part is intentional but there is no motive to kill a specific person. If I went outside into the street and started punching people, any person I first saw, is there any meaningful "non-random" aspect to it, if it is always the first person I see?

Of course there is. Obviously people who live or work near you are more likely to be punched. People active during the day, people who walk rather than drive, any number of other things make someone more likely to be punched than average. Punching someone in the face isn't something that accumulates over time, but if it were and you did it for long enough, you might start to see noticable changes in the demographics of your neighborhood.

#38 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 October 2017 - 12:47 PM

Goku, are you thinking? It seemed you were forming a post but now have changed your mind. You must forgive my ferocious zeal. It isn't personal.

 

But think through this point again; if I am going to commit random violence, for every violent act upon a person there has to be a victim of the violent act.

 

That part highlighted is tautological. It tells us very little. So as an analogy, if I went into the street to punch victims, whoever the first victim was, would happen to be the victim.

 

In the same way, whichever genes get "through" are the ones that happened be fit, in X situation.

 

So let us take those two examples and now imagine that instead of Dawkins walking down the street that day, that it was someone else and I punched them. Now let us imagine that a mutation for sickled cell anemia happened in Africa, but there was no threat from malaria an the non-sickled cell allele tended to be favoured by natural selection instead.

 

What is my point? Can you not notice how inherently random this is? 

 

:acigar:

 

;)



#39 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 02 October 2017 - 12:50 PM

GAs are goal-orientated, intelligently designed things with objectives. Not at all equivalent to mindless evolution. What have they made anyway? There are many logical differences between the two which are ignored by evolutionists. Evolution has no prescience, an algorithm is programmed to do things.

An algorithm is programmed to follow a process. In this case the process of generating changes and determining which changes are carried to the next generation. The part where the next generation is determined is designed to simulate the "random" factors we call natural selection in the real world.

In most of the cases I've seen, the "goal" is a functional one rather than a structural one. The goal isn't a four legged animal that moves with a certain gait, that's just the end product of selecting for the fastest/most stable/whatever. It's a simplification from the real world, but it seems legitimate as a simplified illustration of the process.

GAs are a bait-and-switch fallacy, they don't example evolution in biological things. You get baited with evolution then they switch evolution to an algorithm, but there is no scientific test which proves the two are anything like the same thing, only an assumption they are. 

You're perfectly willing to analogize to non-biological things when you think it exemplifies design, why is that suddenly a barrier when the non-biological supports evolution?

In other words, you have to back up what you say - just saying things about algorithms won't convince me that evolution done these things, because algorithms did.

The point wasn't that evolution did those things. The point was very specifically against the idea that a better functioning system is necessarily the product of a more intelligent designer.

#40 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 October 2017 - 12:56 PM

 

 

Popoi: Generally you can't find a pattern in one example. If you look at a whole population, a Johnny-type would be more likely to survive and breed than a Bob-type, which can result in the mutation being spread through the population.

 

Yes, we all know that. The only point is that selection includes such random examples.

 

 

 

Popoi: Of course there is. Obviously people who live or work near you are more likely to be punched. People active during the day, people who walk rather than drive, any number of other things make someone more likely to be punched than average

 

This doesn't alter my point - that the first person to be punched is a random matter. If it is more probable a certain person will be punched, for example if it is more probable a common man will be rather than the queen, that doesn't mean that it is more logically described as non-random.

 

Are you saying random violence isn't random violence? It seems you would only say that to defend evolution, whereas I believe if we were having a debate about what random means you would likely agree that random violence means that there was no selection for a specific victim or order. The first victim is randomly chosen. Your point doesn't change the validity of my point. There is no non-random aspect to it, the person I first punch is only punched because the intention is to do violence indiscriminately.

 

So you are effectively saying that if I toss a coin and get heads and I am only tossing it for fun, that it isn't random that I got heads instead of tails, then? In the same way if the intention is to punch anyone then the matter is the same in regards to the point I am making. Yes the matter isn't the same in that people aren't made out of copper like a copper coin, but that isn't germane to my point.  The point is, whether I get heads or tails, hit Johnny or Bobby, it is random. You can't broaden it out and change the significance because in the local area I live in it could be anyone I punch in the local area. It is still random, if it was not random the first victim would be chosen specifically. 

 

Would you understand the common meaning if the police came on Tv saying "we believe this was a random attack." or if they said, "we don't believe this was a random attack".

 

I propose you would know exactly what they meant, that the former wasn't intended to be a specific victim but the latter was.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users