Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Is Defined As Random


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 September 2017 - 05:04 AM

Goku recently said that mostly evolution isn't random and that creationists often say it is. In fact this is one of the most common evolutionary arguments which are only made by assertion rather than argument, generally. An ad nauseam argument is an argument that's only credence is predicated on it's repetition.

 

In fact evolution is random according to the definition, if "random" is to mean without purpose or "by chance". Obviously the most usual and common definition is that something happens by chance, with no teleology involved.

 

We can think of common examples of sods' law, most people will say, "wouldn't you know it, I was five minutes from home and it started to rain on me even though it had been dry for two hours while I cycled."

 

What most people really mean by this, is that they want to blame sod's law, but really they know it happened randomly, there was no decision as to where and when the rain would drop, it was simply the time for precipitation to occur. Where a bird does it's droppings is random, it isn't aiming for your head. (or maybe that one can be disputed) ;)

 

So I think at least the most common definition is the correct one usually, that "random" is the chance-happening of an event that involves no teleology. (no purpose).

 

So then one can see why evolutionists would want evolution to be defined as non-random, because this might give a tenuous varnish to evolution, because obviously the parts in an eyeball all being arranged to be conducive to sight, is anything but, "random". So they desperately want to say that natural selection is non-random.

 

However, the term, "natural selection" is a misleading term, because there is no purposeful selection, what it really means is differential reproduction, that those that aren't fit, simply won't survive to pass on genes in that circumstance. There is no literal, "selection", and this personification (or anthropomorphism) seems to make evolutionists make the error of thinking natural selection is not random.

 

In fact natural selection is random because there isn't any purpose behind the, "selection", and it is random as to which individual animal will receive fit genes. In the same way if water takes the path of least resistance, this is still random, for the path itself was randomly created, and the water doesn't "intend" to take the path, it merely takes it, there is no purpose involved, no conscious decision.

 

[attachment=1642:random.jpg]

 

So then the law of the excluded middle applies, where there is a logical disjunction; "either P or the negation of P". In other words, something is either random or not random. If something does "NOT" have conscious decision/purpose behind it, then it is random.

 

So then to look at the specified complexity of a differential in a car and say "it is random" would be an absurd statement - it is only arranged that way to solve wheelspin. In the same way the parts of an eye are constructed to give sight.

 

But evolution is random. Mutations are random sampling errors, natural selection is simply the genes that will get passed on because they are fittest, only S@xual selection is arguably non-random.

 

Another factor we must consider is that where the law of the excluded middle applies there can be no trichotomy or tetrachotomy. Only a dichotomy. So then a contrary thing isn't the same as something antithetical. In other words, the opposite of a murderer isn't the contrary, "not a murderer." This is something a lot of people confuse, in fact the opposite of a murderer would be a giver-of-life, perhaps a woman that has had children for example. 

 

CONCLUSION: Often evolutionists think creationists don't understand evolution theory by saying evolution is random, in fact as I have just proven, evolutionists don't understand the usual definition of random. (And appealing to obscure definitions doesn't count, the usual definition is the one that counts, that's just weaselling semantics.) 



#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 October 2017 - 04:17 AM

In fact natural selection is random because there isn't any purpose behind the, "selection", and it is random as to which individual animal will receive fit genes. In the same way if water takes the path of least resistance, this is still random, for the path itself was randomly created, and the water doesn't "intend" to take the path, it merely takes it, there is no purpose involved, no conscious decision.

You should read the definition you provided again.  It says "without method OR conscious decision." (Emphasis Pi's)  There is, in fact, a "method" to the path water takes.

 

 

....

CONCLUSION: Often evolutionists think creationists don't understand evolution theory by saying evolution is random, in fact as I have just proven, evolutionists don't understand the usual definition of random. (And appealing to obscure definitions doesn't count, the usual definition is the one that counts, that's just weaselling semantics.) 

When multiple definitions are involved, one must use the definition that fits the context.  The weaseling semantics is to assert otherwise.

 

Here's another definition of "random" from the Miriam-Webster on-line dictionary.

 

 

Definition of random

:a haphazard course

at random

:without definite aim, direction, rule, or method

 

Notice, it's the only definition of "random" and this is hardly an "obscure" dictionary.

 

 

The same dictionary defines "selection" as:

Definition of selection

1 :the act or process of selecting

 

Notice, a process of selecting doesn't require a "purpose."



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 October 2017 - 02:25 AM

No a process of selecting requires a conscious entity. Piasan, did you read my explanation? Natural selection it seems, that terminology, has indeed as I previously said, influenced your thinking. There is no actual selection, the process is random. Nature isn't selecting because nature isn't a conscious entity. The terminology, "natural selection" shouldn't be taken literally., you literalist. :P

 

Here is what happens, a mutation which is a mistake not a design, occurs, the individidual that receives the mistake and the environment the individual in, is random, so the mutation and where it strikes, and what it strikes on and where, is random. Then if it is favourable or it is not favourable, depends on yet again, the random placement of the individual and where the individual happens to be biogeographically. So then, most mutations are neutral or negative. For a small percentage of those mutations, if there happens by random chance, to be an advantage to that particular mutation, say it occurs as a sickled cell in Africa rather than the UK, those individuals with that allele will tend to survive and pass it on.

 

Now tell me, what real method is there to this? So if Goku's claim is that evolution is mostly non-random, my claim is that it is mostly random by far, if there is some miniscule amount that could be called non-random by the definition that holds there is a method or reason, then all such events could be said to be non-random. Where the rain lands would then not be random, because there is method to precipitation. Where a bird does it's dropping could be said to be non-random because there is method to digestive systems. 

 

In other words, if there is any non-random element to evolution, it is a very small part that is argued upon a technicality, and it can only regarded as "random" in a tenuous way.



#4 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 October 2017 - 04:03 AM

 When multiple definitions are involved, one must use the definition that fits the context. 

This is oh so true.

One must keep in mind that the other party might be using a different definition and thus some clarification might be required. Clarification, not semantic weaseling.

 

 

The same dictionary defines "selection" as:

Definition of selection

1 :the act or process of selecting

 

Notice, a process of selecting doesn't require a "purpose."

I disagree with your usage of the dictionary here. You should have gone further and thus gone to the "selecting" link and quote that as well:

 
Definition of select
1 :chosen from a number or group by fitness or preference
2 a :of special value or excellence :superior, choice
b :exclusively or fastidiously chosen often with regard to social, economic, or cultural characteristics
3 :judicious or restrictive in choice :discriminating
pleased with the select appreciation of his books —Osbert Sitwell
 
Of course neither of these require a "purpose".
 
This interaction is funny:  :D

 

 

 

...

Notice, a process of selecting doesn't require a "purpose."

 

 

 

No a process of selecting requires a conscious entity. ...

 

Textbook strawman.


#5 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 October 2017 - 12:15 PM

Fjuri said:

When multiple definitions are involved, one must use the definition that fits the context. 
This is oh so true.
One must keep in mind that the other party might be using a different definition and thus some clarification might be required. Clarification, not semantic weaseling.

 
Amen!

piasan, on 01 Oct 2017 - 06:17 AM, said:

The same dictionary defines "selection" as:
Definition of selection
1 :the act or process of selecting
 
Notice, a process of selecting doesn't require a "purpose."
I disagree with your usage of the dictionary here. You should have gone further and thus gone to the "selecting" link and quote that as well:

All the processes I am familiar with require at some point intelligent input to initiate a process and to follow an orderly progression of oten numerous small steps (such as baking a cake)

Definition of select
1 :chosen from a number or group by fitness or preference
2 a :of special value or excellence :superior, choice
b :exclusively or fastidiously chosen often with regard to social, economic, or cultural characteristics
3 :judicious or restrictive in choice :discriminating
pleased with the select appreciation of his books —Osbert Sitwell
 
Of course neither of these require a "purpose".
 
This interaction is funny: 
 
mike the wiz, on 02 Oct 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

 
piasan, on 01 Oct 2017 - 06:17 AM, said:

 
...
Notice, a process of selecting doesn't require a "purpose."
 
 
 
No a process of selecting requires a conscious entity. ...
 
Textbook strawman.

Try making a statement without being concious. LOL
Accordig to your logic all humans are strawmen! Very creative! LOL

The basis of understanding anything requires conciousness, information, intelligence and the ability to reason. Intelligence is the human bottom line! Without it there are no definitions!



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 October 2017 - 03:53 AM

Fjuri, I believe you misunderstood the Khantext of what I was saying to Piasan. I wasn't strawmanning him.

 

As for this context business, you may have a point, but what I am really saying here in this topic, is that I believe a lot of evolutionists use the, "selection is not random" argument in an attempt to equivocate.

 

The kind of non-random things we see in life such as specified complexity and contingency planning and so forth, really speaks of a level of non-randomness which is clearly teleological.

 

I believe those evolutionists are attempting to pretend that natural selection, because it is non-random, somehow solves that problem. So when we say, "look at all the clear design in life, this isn't random, it can't be the result of accidental molecules-to-man", they try and get out of this by pretending that evolution can somehow be represented as something non-random, in the highly tuned and super-non-random way that we mean, which can only mean that God-did-it. :D

 

(Confessions of a mischief-agent; I added "super" non-random as an epithet and hoped it would be subtle and therefore go un-noticed, please be aware that I have been civil by not saying, "super-duper non-random"  :rotfl3: 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users