Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Says . . .


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#41 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 - 01:14 PM

 

 

Popoi: 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.

 

So natural selection is random?

 

There are many disimilarities between GAs and real life. In real life there are multiple coding genes for example, a GA can't handle and therefore can't properly simulate real gene pools where one gene may code for a protein read one way, and another read the other way. Also the mutation rates aren't realistic to real life either.

 

Basically you are saying, "take this simulation F1 racing game but we can't fully simulate real life, nevertheless because in the game the driver is unharmed in a crash therefore it follows that in real life this is the same."

 

The fact is GAs are deliberately designed to be super-conducive to evolution, as though evolution is the intended thing, when in reality the mediocre and limited ability of evolution is hampered by real-world problems such as error-catastrophe, Haldane's dilemma, mutation rates which wildly differ and no prescience for the mechanisms of evo, no desired goal.



#42 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 02 October 2017 - 01:56 PM

This doesn't alter my point - that the first person to be punched is a random matter.

We're not only interested in the first person to be punched in this analogy. Evolution isn't just the first mutation, it's all the change over time.
 

Are you saying random violence isn't random violence?

Random violence isn't random in every sense of the word, no.
 

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.

That fits the common meaning of "random" in the context of law, which is generally as the opposite of "premeditated".
 

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?

Again, we're interested in the whole, not just an individual trial. If you take two steps forward on a heads and one step back on a tails, it shouldn't be a surprise that you end up walking forward over time. We wouldn't tend to describe that outcome as "random", because that generally implies some amount of unpredictability. Anybody with a basic understanding of probability could predict you're most likely to end up walking forward over time. The coin flip is random, the position you end up in after all the flipping isn't.
 

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.

I would know what they meant because of the context.

If I told you a die roll was totally random, would you expect it to mean that the die is fair, or that it was loaded and I accidentally dropped it?

#43 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 - 03:16 PM

Getting back to my original point, it's tautologous that if you attack people with random violence the first victim will be a particular person, however this person was an unfortunate victim of random violence. S/he was chosen randomly. If that person had not been there that day, it would have been someone else, because it is whoever is present that the perpetrator intends to kill. (random) In the same way natural selection will only randomly choose what it is given, whatever it is given, but of course there is not real, "selection" it's just that the traits best for survival that happen to occur, and be passed on.

 

That the fittest ones will survive is a tautology, it will always be true. But this doesn't remove the random nature of the scenario. So then in all possible worlds, every person on earth could be the first victim, and in all possible worlds, natural selection could have selected all possible traits.

 

 

 

Popoi: Random violence isn't random in every sense of the word, no.

 

No but something is meant by random-violence, it just means there was no particular intention for a specific victim. Obviously it goes without saying, that the decision to act violently itself is not random but that the victims are. So I was asking, is random violence, random? It is best described as random IMHO, even if the first person is a particular person, this is kind of a "pseudo-non-random" thing, in the sense that there must always be a first victim, so to say "the first victim wasn't random" is bit of a misconception. The person was decided randomly.

 

 

 

Popoi: Again, we're interested in the whole, not just an individual trial. If you take two steps forward on a heads and one step back on a tails, it shouldn't be a surprise that you end up walking forward over time. We wouldn't tend to describe that outcome as "random", because that generally implies some amount of unpredictability

 

This doesn't depict natural selection because the, "whole" is an illusion. What is selected isn't the whole, it is just the randomly selected mutations that happened to randomly occur, there are many other hypothetical mutations which didn't occur, in other worlds. That is to say, because natural selection has selected what it has selected, this does not mean it would not have selected something different had the occasion presented itself. In this way, it is a pseudo-selection. In all other possible worlds, everything would have been selected in any potential environment P. For example if malaria didn't exist, selection wouldn't have chosen a vast amount of people with sickled cells in Africa. 

 

This next analogy is only to make you understand what I am trying to say because I know that last bit might not be entirely clear; If you say you are hungry, and you prefer a meal, and there is only one shop in town, and they have two things to eat, one peanut and one green bean, because you are hungry you take the peanut. This isn't the "whole" because in other worlds, had you been given more options you likely would have chosen something more substantial.

 

In the same way, what natural selection has, "chosen" in our world, only represents what was randomly sent to it. The parameters are random, so then the choice is a pseudo-selection, in that the "selection" is so weak that it only represents something very limited.

 

So then on any other given day if you were offered a tomato or an apple you may have taken the apple. 

 

So the "non-random" element you argue, seems very one dimensional, limited, tenuous and inconsequential, whereas the true governing factors are largely random and very consequential. So then, what mutations you are sent, are VITAL. What then are the chances of a bird evolving a hook and barbule locking system which just so happen to be perfect for their feathers, and feathers which are perfect for flying? You scream "ahh selection wasn't random" but selection can only choose what it is sent and why would it be sent all of the just-so-happen-to-be-perfect, parts? This is the importance of my argument; that the "random" factor is much more powerful than any non-random factor, anyway.

 

Rational answer; It wouldn't be because mutations are random, the individuals it gives them to are random, it is just as likely a horse will receive mutations for bird-parts instead. It is just as likely that a horse will evolve feathers, and perhaps more likely given hairs have follicles and scales don't. If you look at a hair follicle and a feather follicle the structure is fairly similar, but scales are one piece, scales are shed as a skin, so the chances of a horse getting a mutation for a feather, are better than the chance of scales evolving from a mutation.

 

Just because I want to build a car doesn't mean that if I randomly order parts online I will be sent the specific carburetor to match another specific part. "ahh but you get to select to keep which parts", yes but that won't mean I will receive the B1956 part to go with the B1957 part.

 

When I also consider bats and birds, birds have a far more complicated and complex contraflow lung system but bats apparently evolved the more simple, modified bellows type lung which is basically just the ordinary lungs like we have, only smaller. Is it a coincidence that birds seem to require the mass-exchange, two-stroke, contraflow system? It seems a realistic scenario that both bats and birds would have the modified bellows type.

 

The problem becomes that you have to add up the coincidences and the amount of them don't match up with the random mutation scenario. If we take a particular kind of animal, like the sea-anemone dart eating slug, it is designed as a whole, to eat darts. These would perforate any usual slug, and it makes much more logical sense they were designed that way as a whole, when we see there are a variety of anatomically congruent parts that all help it to do that job. Does the bombardier beetle just happen to have the correct chemicals for example? 

 

These things are granted to evolution, circularly, without any direct evidence to show they evolved. Essentially you ask us to on faith, believe a build up of coincidences in every creature, aren't teleological when the one thing that would solve all of these problems most parsimoniously, is teleology. After all there is no reason to suppose a car's parts all happen to be the correct ones by accident. It is identical with lifeforms, they share all of the features of intelligent design also, identically. We can show a contingency plan in a car as we can in any lifeform, we can show specified complexity, information, viability, peculiarly clever solutions to obscure problems that only exist for specific species. Therefore I must say, this strikes me as a very weak hand this mutations and selection business.


  • Tirian likes this

#44 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 02 October 2017 - 09:23 PM

This doesn't alter my point - that the first person to be punched is a random matter.

We're not only interested in the first person to be punched in this analogy. Evolution isn't just the first mutation, it's all the change over time. 

Are you saying random violence isn't random violence?

Random violence isn't random in every sense of the word, no. 

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.

That fits the common meaning of "random" in the context of law, which is generally as the opposite of "premeditated". 

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?

Again, we're interested in the whole, not just an individual trial. If you take two steps forward on a heads and one step back on a tails, it shouldn't be a surprise that you end up walking forward over time. We wouldn't tend to describe that outcome as "random", because that generally implies some amount of unpredictability. Anybody with a basic understanding of probability could predict you're most likely to end up walking forward over time. The coin flip is random, the position you end up in after all the flipping isn't. 

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.

I would know what they meant because of the context.If I told you a die roll was totally random, would you expect it to mean that the die is fair, or that it was loaded and I accidentally dropped it?


"If you take two steps forward on a heads and one step back on a tails, it shouldn't be a surprise that you end up walking forward over time."

That is just plain silly..

You are talking about a 66.6 % Success rate on a 50% proposition over the course of long ages.. A statistical absurdity beyond belief..
But we are all aware by now that pure desperation and special pleading on steroids is part and parcel of the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth..

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

#45 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 October 2017 - 01:08 AM

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.

 

I didn't say evolution is mostly non-random; I said the process as a whole is non-random. Namely, natural selection is non-random (S@xual selection is a specific type of natural selection). Popoi's example of taking two steps forwards on heads and one step back on tails is a good example of how a system with random variables moves in a consistent direction making the process as a whole non-random.

 

There are more variables than natural selection going on; Johnny getting hit by the car is an example of genetic drift. However, on the whole, natural selection will help shape the phenotype expressed in a given population. This is not wild guesswork; we see this in human populations today. Perhaps the most often used example is skin color as it relates to the environment, but we also see it in things like how our bodies process food which is related to the diet a person's ancestors had. I don't think it is a difficult concept that those with beneficial mutations are statistically more likely to survive and pass on those mutations to the next generation. IOW the end result is non-random.

 

Evolution can and does give you 'designs' with the illusion of conscious purpose. A bird's wing for example; its' function is to aid in flight (in biology it is said that form = function), but the teleology is an illusion created with natural selection molding a specific form which was 'selected' tautologically as a trait giving it a survival benefit.

 

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.

 

I am saying the path of the ball once it is dropped (from rest) is "random" according to your definition despite that everyone knows that the ball will drop straight down 100% of the time unless there is some overriding force. The path is not random despite that there is no consciousness involved. If the human aspect dropping the ball is throwing you off, then imagine a drop of water falling off a stalactite in a cave. There was no consciousness telling the drop of water to fall off or to go down to the floor, yet we all know the drop of water is going to go down every time.

 

This is why I say your definition of random is at best useless in this context because everything in science becomes random; the Sun coming up tomorrow is random as there is no consciousness making the Sun come up.

 

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?

 

I use the word random in a similar way in my colloquial speech; the definition of 'no meaningful conscious decision' is a valid meaning of random, but it is not an appropriate definition in this context. It's like using the word "theory" to mean a "wild guess", and that is a valid definition in colloquial contexts (I use it that way too), but not in the context of science.

 

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.

 

That is why one of the motifs of evolutionary theory is that which traits are beneficial is determined by the environment. This doesn't change the reality that in a certain environment certain traits are beneficial and thus more likely to be passed on to the next generation, and that is non-random. This is one of the reasons why the current climate change is so problematic; the climate is changing too fast for organisms to adapt and this will negatively impact ecosystems, but that is a tangent.

 

Sure which individuals are mutated is random, but no one is saying everything about evolution is non-random; only that the results of the process as a whole is non-random within the constraints of natural law and the random variables involved.

 

Natural selection is not the only factor, so in reality the statement is that statistically fitter genes are more likely to be passed on, rather than "always". But that is the point, tautology or not; the direction of evolution is non-random towards that which is beneficial for survival and reproduction. Thus, while there are random elements to evolution, as a whole evolution is non-random.

 

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.

I was making this post but didn't finish before I fell asleep, so I sat on it until the next day. Luck you my workload tomorrow is light (it was heavy but circumstances changed) so I have time tonight to finish it.



#46 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 October 2017 - 11:44 AM

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.

 
I didn't say evolution is mostly non-random; I said the process as a whole is non-random. Namely, natural selection is non-random (S@xual selection is a specific type of natural selection). Popoi's example of taking two steps forwards on heads and one step back on tails is a good example of how a system with random variables moves in a consistent direction making the process as a whole non-random.
 
There are more variables than natural selection going on; Johnny getting hit by the car is an example of genetic drift. However, on the whole, natural selection will help shape the phenotype expressed in a given population. This is not wild guesswork; we see this in human populations today. Perhaps the most often used example is skin color as it relates to the environment, but we also see it in things like how our bodies process food which is related to the diet a person's ancestors had. I don't think it is a difficult concept that those with beneficial mutations are statistically more likely to survive and pass on those mutations to the next generation. IOW the end result is non-random.
 
Evolution can and does give you 'designs' with the illusion of conscious purpose. A bird's wing for example; its' function is to aid in flight (in biology it is said that form = function), but the teleology is an illusion created with natural selection molding a specific form which was 'selected' tautologically as a trait giving it a survival benefit.
 

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.

 
I am saying the path of the ball once it is dropped (from rest) is "random" according to your definition despite that everyone knows that the ball will drop straight down 100% of the time unless there is some overriding force. The path is not random despite that there is no consciousness involved. If the human aspect dropping the ball is throwing you off, then imagine a drop of water falling off a stalactite in a cave. There was no consciousness telling the drop of water to fall off or to go down to the floor, yet we all know the drop of water is going to go down every time.
 
This is why I say your definition of random is at best useless in this context because everything in science becomes random; the Sun coming up tomorrow is random as there is no consciousness making the Sun come up.
 

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?

 
I use the word random in a similar way in my colloquial speech; the definition of 'no meaningful conscious decision' is a valid meaning of random, but it is not an appropriate definition in this context. It's like using the word "theory" to mean a "wild guess", and that is a valid definition in colloquial contexts (I use it that way too), but not in the context of science.
 

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.

 
That is why one of the motifs of evolutionary theory is that which traits are beneficial is determined by the environment. This doesn't change the reality that in a certain environment certain traits are beneficial and thus more likely to be passed on to the next generation, and that is non-random. This is one of the reasons why the current climate change is so problematic; the climate is changing too fast for organisms to adapt and this will negatively impact ecosystems, but that is a tangent.
 
Sure which individuals are mutated is random, but no one is saying everything about evolution is non-random; only that the results of the process as a whole is non-random within the constraints of natural law and the random variables involved.
 
Natural selection is not the only factor, so in reality the statement is that statistically fitter genes are more likely to be passed on, rather than "always". But that is the point, tautology or not; the direction of evolution is non-random towards that which is beneficial for survival and reproduction. Thus, while there are random elements to evolution, as a whole evolution is non-random.
 

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.

I was making this post but didn't finish before I fell asleep, so I sat on it until the next day. Luck you my workload tomorrow is light (it was heavy but circumstances changed) so I have time tonight to finish it.

nothing new here, the same old modern synthesis that addresses NONE of the recent discoveries that have been made in regards to evolution.

#47 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 October 2017 - 11:47 AM

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:

• The genome is always a well-organized library of genes.

• Genes usually have single functions that have been specifically honed by powerful natural selection.

• Species are finely adjusted to their ecological circumstances due to efficient adaptive adjustment of biochemical functions.

• The durable units of evolution are species, and within them the organisms, organs, cells, and molecules, which are characteristic of the species.

• 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

#48 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 03 October 2017 - 02:50 PM

This next analogy is only to make you understand what I am trying to say because I know that last bit might not be entirely clear; If you say you are hungry, and you prefer a meal, and there is only one shop in town, and they have two things to eat, one peanut and one green bean, because you are hungry you take the peanut. This isn't the "whole" because in other worlds, had you been given more options you likely would have chosen something more substantial.

Do you think anyone in the world would define their dining as "random" because they are limited in the food they can select from at any given time?

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]So the "non-random" element you argue, seems very one dimensional, limited, tenuous and inconsequential, whereas the true governing factors are largely random and very consequential.

If you have a weak one-dimensional element, and another element that's stronger but directionless, which element will determine which direction things tend to go in the long term?

Does the bombardier beetle just happen to have the correct chemicals for example?

It doesn't just "happen to", it's the product of a series of refinements.

Essentially you ask us to on faith, believe a build up of coincidences in every creature, aren't teleological when the one thing that would solve all of these problems most parsimoniously, is teleology.

I get a hearty chuckle every time someone claims that an unobservable and omnipotent being is a more parsimonious explanation for anything.

After all there is no reason to suppose a car's parts all happen to be the correct ones by accident.

Because cars aren't life. As you pointed out earlier, you have to demonstrate that the analogy holds.

It is identical with lifeforms, they share all of the features of intelligent design also, identically.

Did I miss when they invented reproducing cars?

#49 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 October 2017 - 01:01 AM

This next analogy is only to make you understand what I am trying to say because I know that last bit might not be entirely clear; If you say you are hungry, and you prefer a meal, and there is only one shop in town, and they have two things to eat, one peanut and one green bean, because you are hungry you take the peanut. This isn't the "whole" because in other worlds, had you been given more options you likely would have chosen something more substantial.

Do you think anyone in the world would define their dining as "random" because they are limited in the food they can select from at any given time?

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]So the "non-random" element you argue, seems very one dimensional, limited, tenuous and inconsequential, whereas the true governing factors are largely random and very consequential.

If you have a weak one-dimensional element, and another element that's stronger but directionless, which element will determine which direction things tend to go in the long term?

Does the bombardier beetle just happen to have the correct chemicals for example?

It doesn't just "happen to", it's the product of a series of refinements.

Essentially you ask us to on faith, believe a build up of coincidences in every creature, aren't teleological when the one thing that would solve all of these problems most parsimoniously, is teleology.

I get a hearty chuckle every time someone claims that an unobservable and omnipotent being is a more parsimonious explanation for anything.

After all there is no reason to suppose a car's parts all happen to be the correct ones by accident.

Because cars aren't life. As you pointed out earlier, you have to demonstrate that the analogy holds.

It is identical with lifeforms, they share all of the features of intelligent design also, identically.

Did I miss when they invented reproducing cars?



"I get a hearty chuckle every time someone claims that an unobservable and omnipotent being is a more parsimonious explanation for anything."

Surely your hearty chuckly pales in comparison to the covulsive jocular cachinnation that overcomes creationists upon hearing accidentalists claim that in the beginning "nothing" created our finely tuned universe AND man by chance for no reason.. Ahahahahhahhahaaahn. The name of this website is way to kind to describe the phenomena...

"I miss when they invented reproducing cars"

Did we miss the fairytale about "long ago and far away" when Vital organs WERENT Vital organs? (For some strange reason) Think... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.. A Microbe has ZERO Vital organs.. A Microbiologist has TEN.. give us a possible ORDER.. (The math isnt hard)

"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."

(George Sim Johnson)

#50 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 04 October 2017 - 02:25 AM

 

 

Popoi: Did I miss when they invented reproducing cars?

 

Yeah did I miss when when they started inventing helicopters you bake? I guess that means cakes and helicopters can't both be designed then. This is the classic PRATT all evolutionists argue, that we can't compare life to technology because technology doesn't reproduce. In fact that is like saying that we can't say that Roger Federer and Michael Schumacher were both great sportsmen because one of them didn't hold a tennis racket. In fact logically, the comparison of life and technology doesn't have to show them identical in their specific features which is a red-herring, in fact we only have to show that both share the defining features of intelligent design.

 

As for parsimony, strictly speaking intelligent design as an explanation doesn't "require" that I include God in my conclusion. In fact I am fine with admitting that the "God" part I can't prove but that the intelligent designs in nature obviously being on a miraculous scale, and way beyond any normal intelligence level, are the evidence we would expect for God. So formally I am not declaring God in my conclusion, but on a personal level I am arguing that God-did-it. It can be easy to not notice the difference but if you check out my ID threads you will find in any formal syllogism I provide, "God" is not mentioned in any of the premises or the conclusion, so it is my own personal belief that God is responsible, and obviously I would argue strongly but not formally (I can't prove it) that God is obviously the designer.

 

So when we come across the ID features in life, the explanation of design is parsimonious because there are millions of less entities, than if you argue evolution. Secondly we know ID causes ID. So the argument for ID is watertight in comparison, the induction of things we have showing ID is caused by and IDer is 100%, we have no examples of evolution causing squat.



#51 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 04 October 2017 - 03:34 AM

I deleted my response to Goku. Basically I believe his tactic is always the same, to basically present the speculation and conjecture of evolution theory. Also when he said statistically those traits most beneficial for survival will be selected, I believe there was nothing in my posts to suggest I would not understand that. In other words, when evolutionists start to patronise by using the "I'm teaching you evolution here" tactic, that's when I walk away.

 

I notice this a lot as a rhetorical device - that if a person omits certain facts and things they know, (we can't type everything), then the debater will then take the opportunity to explain those things, and this gives a false impression that the other person didn't know those things.

 

Now I know most evolutionists themselves aren't aware they are doing this but when people just start stating things that go without saying, because they want to present the false argument of, "you just don't understand evolution", then to be frank I am not going to hang around being insulted by people. 

 

All of my points are strong ones - "selection" is only limited to selecting those most fit for survival, that as a "non-random" element, even if I conceded it, is only what logic calls a vacuous truth. In the very same way if there is random violence the first person to be attacked will be the first person to be attacked. (both tautologies, showing they are both weak points.) For imagine we said the best way to choose attractive women is to go out and select the first person we come across. In the same way imagine we said the best way to get sophistication in life, echolocation, and exploding bombariers and dart-eating slugs, and unimaginably clever physics, etc. and to have all life be viably designed, is just to select for, "conducive for survival".

 

Lol!



#52 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 04 October 2017 - 05:37 AM

Its the year 2714, about 200 years after the Great War that nearly destroyed the entire world. People are just emerging from their shelters and discovering how big the world really is. A new mode of transportation is required since they've been living in bunkers, crossing distances on foot. Mark, Pat and George are discussing the problem. They have access to an entire library of forgotten knowledge and can produce anything they can imagine, but they have never seen any of the objects, and large parts of the data has gone missing or has become corrupted (the fables section and the engineering section got mixed).

 

Mark suggests something they know work for sure: You take a box, put some box, put some wheels on it, and let it be pulled by other men, maybe some animals they find on the surface. It works, great!

Pat found the schematics of a combustion engine. He had it made, got the fuel and everything, but for some reason can't make it to work. After pondering on it for a while, he discovers that he needs the engine running before the combustion engine can take over and keep running. So he creates a crank, which he uses to turn the engine axis up to speed and it works.

George found another solution, he could use a different engine, a DC engine for example, to just put some speed on the axis so the combustion engine can take over. 

 

The question now is:

Can we discuss the combustion engine without the starter engine?



#53 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 04 October 2017 - 07:52 AM

For imagine we said the best way to choose attractive women is to go out and select the first person we come across.

If you go outside and swap your existing girlfriend for the first woman you see, there is no reason to expect that your girlfriends will get more attractive over time. You are only sampling the randomness, there is no selection. If you go outside and swap your existing girlfriend for a more attractive woman if you see one, there is reason to expect an increase in attractiveness. You are selecting from the random (not really, but close enough) options available to you, which produces change over time. The selection part is critical.
 

In the same way imagine we said the best way to get sophistication in life, echolocation, and exploding bombariers and dart-eating slugs, and unimaginably clever physics, etc. and to have all life be viably designed, is just to select for, "conducive for survival".[/font]

You've tried to pivot to "best" multiple times in this thread and it's getting obnoxious. Nobody said natural selection was the best way to do anything. It can (and did) produce a wide variety of things that are pretty good at surviving, but that's not to say that it's the best way to do so, in part because "best" is left completely undefined.
 

Yeah did I miss when when they started inventing helicopters you bake? I guess that means cakes and helicopters can't both be designed then.

Is being baked why we think things are or aren't intelligently designed?

This is the classic PRATT all evolutionists argue, that we can't compare life to technology because technology doesn't reproduce.

The idea that we don't expect a car to have evolved so we shouldn't expect life to have evolve is faulty because the main thing life does that a car doesn't is also one of the main reasons we think life evolved, namely reproduction with modification.
 

In fact logically, the comparison of life and technology doesn't have to show them identical in their specific features which is a red-herring, in fact we only have to show that both share the defining features of intelligent design.[/font]

There is exactly one defining feature of intelligent design: an intelligent designer. All the other lists you've tried to float have all been cherry picked and circular.

#54 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:37 AM

judging by emerging new research, my contention is:
you can take any animal of a particuler phyla and turn it into any other animal of that phyla in 50 or so generations using only epigenetics and transposons.
there is indeed evidence that supports the above claim.

the only "fixed" genes are the ones that determine phyla and how DNA is stored and read.

natural selection is but one of the forces that shapes evolution and it isn't the dominate one.

if you are looking at evolution through the eyes of the modern synthesis, then you are seeing evolution wrong.

epigenetics has rendered such things as gene distribution analysis practically worthless.
simply because epigenetics can mask the presence of genes

#55 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 October 2017 - 12:01 PM

. . . because they want to present the false argument of, "you just don't understand evolution", . . .

this can be said of every biologist from darwin all the way up to, i don't know, the year 2000 maybe.
of course, there were a few scientists that questioned darwinism, but they were always shouted down by the gradualists, their research outright ignored.

koonin summed it up quite nicely:
At the distinct risk of earning the ire of many for associating with a much-maligned cultural thread, I call this major change the transition to a postmodern view of life.

#56 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 04 October 2017 - 12:02 PM

 

 

PopoiThe idea that we don't expect a car to have evolved so we shouldn't expect life to have evolve is faulty because the main thing life does that a car doesn't is also one of the main reasons we think life evolved, namely reproduction with modification.

 

This is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that because life can reproduce therefore it can evolve and therefore isn't designed.

 

In fact my argument for design has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction, even if cars could reproduce that wouldn't alter my argument or have any effect on it. My argument is that a car has all of the features of intelligent design and so does life. Reproduction is one feature of life which technology doesn't have because we aren't intelligent enough to make cars that reproduce. If someone invented a car that could produce a new one for you when it got old, that person would instantly be more famous than Einstein in the intelligence-department. So I fail to see how reproduction favours evolution.

 

If we take reproduction for what it is in real life, obviously the different types of reproduction don't link all life on a phylogenetic tree, but rather the different types of reproduction thwart that tree.

 

 

 

Popoi: There is exactly one defining feature of intelligent design: an intelligent designer. All the other lists you've tried to float have all been cherry picked and circular. 

 

Not really because if a UFO landed we would recognise it was designed because of all of those features. I mean are you saying you really don't believe features such as specified complexity and contingency planning and correct materials, exist? These are all of the things which define what design is. Your "one feature is a designer" is an example of a rigged dice, you pick the one thing you already know we can't get our hands on, and ignore a whole list of features which are the hallmark of design, and have the audacity to call me a cherry-picker.

 

 

 

Popoi: If you go outside and swap your existing girlfriend for the first woman you see, there is no reason to expect that your girlfriends will get more attractive over time. You are only sampling the randomness, there is no selection. If you go outside and swap your existing girlfriend for a more attractive woman if you see one, there is reason to expect an increase in attractiveness. You are selecting from the random (not really, but close enough) options available to you, which produces change over time. The selection part is critical.
 

 

There is selection, the selection is you go outside and choose the first person you see. It's your usual game of obfuscation; an attempt to avoid the unavoidable, that selection is limited one dimensionally to only choosing the best for survival, like in my analogy the first choice is the only "choice".

 

They're identical in their tautologous nature.

 

A tautology is something which is defined as the opposite of a contradiction, and a contradiction is something which is always false, whereas a tautology is something always true. I think this comment of yours actually shows you tacitly agree with me that the "selection" is so trivial it almost can't be noticed, (as highlighted in blue)

 

1 out of 1 times if I pick someone, the first person will be picked. (always true)

1 out of 1 times if selection picks a trait it will be because it was the fittest in the gene pool at that present time, with the traits available.

 

The "selection" is always limited to the same thing in both cases, that the person must pick the first person they come across, and natural selection can only "choose" the ones that survive.

 

Think it through - imagine as an example, we have white bunnies and black bunnies in a snowy, cold climate, and all the black ones are killed. Then those that are white will reproduce. 

 

That's it. That's all "natural selection" is. Those traits that survive, survive. Why those traits really survived though, had nothing to do with any real selection. The cause in my example was that black bunnies got picked off. In another environment it would be different, that those with sickled cells wouldn't die of anemia, so they would survive. In both circumstances the true cause was something particular, but collectively you call this, "natural selection". In a way it could be called, "natural circumstances combined with mutations". But natural circumstances are randomly doled out. 

 

This has now occurred to me - a new thought, that the natural circumstances you call "natural selection" are in fact random circumstances which are tenuously called "selection" collectively, but those circumstances themselves also occur randomly meaning natural selection is random. Malaria in that area was random, bunnies in the snow surviving was random. 

 

(Notice my lack of dogma, I went from arguing NS is random for X reason, then I convinced myself that in some trivial way you guys were right so I conceded a non-random but rather tenuously non-random element, now I find a new reason P for saying NS is after all random, because I overlooked something, I was duped by the term, "natural selection" and so didn't look beyond it. Sherlock Holmes would be shaking his head at me, and rightly so, for the answer was sitting under my nose.)

 

Conclusion; Natural selection is random after all! But not for the original reason I thought - but because collectively it is a non-random term for events which are all individually random and actually differ from one another.  By jove my lad! :acigar: ;)



#57 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 04 October 2017 - 12:38 PM

 

 

What If: this can be said of every biologist from darwin all the way up to, i don't know, the year 2000 maybe

 

I'm talking about laymen debaters though, like Goku and Popoi. All laymen evolutionists use the rhetorical device of trying to make out the non-evolutionist doesn't understand evolution, it's kind of transparent on forums like this. 



#58 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 October 2017 - 01:16 PM

I'm talking about laymen debaters though, like Goku and Popoi. All laymen evolutionists use the rhetorical device of trying to make out the non-evolutionist doesn't understand evolution, it's kind of transparent on forums like this. 

i'll agree.
another common "complaint" is one of misrepresentation.
i've been accused that a lot.
oh, koonin didn't really mean it when he said the modern synthesis is gone.

another favorite is evolutionists try to twist the conversation around to where you seem to be saying your source is denying evolution, or even saying you do.

it's my contention that true scientists do not debate this way.
instead, they will pick your argument apart and show you WHY it doesn't work.

#59 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 04 October 2017 - 01:32 PM

 

 

What Ifanother favorite is evolutionists try to twist the conversation around to where you seem to be saying your source is denying evolution, or even saying you do.

 

That's because they have to keep up the propaganda of the false dichotomy of "you're either of science and evolutionist or not an religious." That's what evolutionist amateurs have to keep going, they're part of that whole thing. What they really are is amateur science-fans without any real education in science most of the time, but they tell themselves if they are fans of it that they are of it.



#60 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 04 October 2017 - 02:17 PM

There is selection, the selection is you go outside and choose the first person you see.

As I said, that's not selection, it's sampling. There is no non-random element that will tend to produce change over time.
 

The "selection" is always limited to the same thing in both cases, that the person must pick the first person they come across, and natural selection can only "choose" the ones that survive.

Is it the "choice" aspect that's confusing you here? Natural selection doesn't have to be able to act differently for there to be a selective pressure on the population.

Think it through - imagine as an example, we have white bunnies and black bunnies in a snowy, cold climate, and all the black ones are killed. Then those that are white will reproduce.

If you found a bunch of dead bunnies of one color, and a bunch of alive bunnies of a different color, would you say the bunnies were being killed at random?

If someone said they were breeding dogs at random, would you expect to come back after a long time and find that the breed they produced was significantly smaller than what they started with?

That's the issue here. The word "random" has implications beyond what you might intend. A random process is a very different thing than a process that is informed by random factors.
 

That's it. That's all "natural selection" is. Those traits that survive, survive.

This is why people feel the need to explain basic concepts to you. Natural selection is that organisms with traits which are better adapted to survival will tend to survive more often than than ones without. What actually survives is a combination of that tendency and whatever ends up actually happening to the population over the course of their lives. It's a subtle but important difference.

Why those traits really survived though, had nothing to do with any real selection.

What would be a real selection?

The cause in my example was that black bunnies got picked off. In another environment it would be different, that those with sickled cells wouldn't die of anemia, so they would survive. In both circumstances the true cause was something particular, but collectively you call this, "natural selection". In a way it could be called, "natural circumstances combined with mutations". But natural circumstances are randomly doled out.

So if the selective pressures were different, the traits that were selected would be different, therefore there was no selection in the first place?

This has now occurred to me - a new thought, that the natural circumstances you call "natural selection" are in fact random circumstances which are tenuously called "selection" collectively, but those circumstances themselves also occur randomly meaning natural selection is random. Malaria in that area was random, bunnies in the snow surviving was random.

The malaria and snow were random (not really but close enough). What happens over time to the organisms in those conditions is not.

Think of it this way: One person rolls a die every time it rains, and walks in some direction for the duration based on the roll.
Another person rolled a die once to determine which direction they'd go, and does so every time it rains.

Are both of those people behaving randomly in the same sense?
If someone said "There's this guy who walks around randomly when it rains", would you expect to see a guy like the first guy or the second one?

I would say that the first guy is walking at random, the second guy is walking in a direction he chose at random. The difference is that we can expect the second guy to make progress in that direction over time, but we can't really expect anything about where the first guy will end up.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users