Jump to content


Photo

Is Randomness Not Part Of Evolution?


  • Please log in to reply
274 replies to this topic

#41 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:13 AM

If you have an specie with 50% of surviving rate and it appears a mutant with 51% of surviving rate, the mutant does not take the surviving for granted.He cannot survive only 51%, or he survives or he doesnt.So, it´s only a matter of chance.

View Post

It is a matter of chance for that individual member of the species. Remember though that evolution happens to populations, not individuals. Over time, the individuals with the 51% chance of survival will replace the ones with the 50% chance of survival.

You should watch the video - it shows this process in action, and repeats it. The outcome is not random.

#42 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:13 AM

I don't see my role as fighting anything.  I'm not an atheist warrior, out to convert the entire world to atheism.  I haven't declared a jihad on all belief in gods.

View Post

Then why did you say the rest of what you said below? :huh:

I do find it interesting what lengths believers will go to, in order to bolster their beliefs and make themselves believe in things that have no evidence to back them up.

As far as whether evolution is random, I also find it interesting that you guys have a difficult time seeing that it has both random and non-random components working together.  Maybe it's got something to do with how you see the world as black/white, good/evil, in other words, through a filter of absolutes, no gray areas allowed.

The word "random" means something to you.  The way I understand Creationist dogma, random means "a whole bunch of atoms just got caught up in a storm and randomly assembled themselves into a human being."  That's ridiculous, of course.  That's the "747 in a junkyard" way of looking at your caricature of evolutionary theory.

The random portion of evolution is mutations.  The non-random portion is natural selection.

It's like a Creationist looking at a river flowing through a riverbed, and only seeing the water, which naturally would disperse unless bounded by the river's banks, and saying, "It's a miracle!  The water is flowing in an orderly fashion, along a seemingly undirected route!"

The water is like mutations.  The riverbanks are like natural selection.  Two things working together to achieve seemingly miraculous order.

View Post

I guess like the contradiction of saying that the non-randomness of evolution is driven by randomness is a parallel double-think to saying; “I’m not trying to convince anybody of anything now let me convince you why this is so…” :blink:

#43 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:27 AM

As I've said before, if you want to believe the stars rule your life, or aliens abduct you regularly to conduct experiments on your body, or a book written thousands of years ago is literally true, I don't mind.

It's fine, but I don't enjoy watching people swallow lies, so I may occasionally speak up to point out certain absurdities.

I don't see it as a crusade. You go right on and believe any mythology you want.


(Edited to add: Also, I think I was speaking quite softly, I don't remember bellowing.)

Then why did you say the rest of what you said bellow? 



#44 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:46 AM

As I've said before, if you want to believe the stars rule your life, or aliens abduct you regularly to conduct experiments on your body, or a book written thousands of years ago is literally true, I don't mind.

View Post

You know, Sis, this is typical atheist tactics. Tying Christianity together with mythology and superstition then expecting us to feel embarrassed because you, as an atheist, view them as a package deal.

Will you defend communism and totalitarianism? I can just as easily and actually more rationally tie these to atheism.

No?

Well, good then don't expect my to feel related to people who buy false worldviews just because you've purchased the bad concept that Christianity and mythology are one in the same.

(Maybe we should get back on topic or start a new thread. You know, you can continue to convince us about how you're not trying to convince us of anything.)

#45 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:02 AM

It is a matter of chance for that individual member of the species. Remember though that evolution happens to populations, not individuals. Over time, the individuals with the 51% chance of survival will replace the ones with the 50% chance of survival.

You should watch the video - it shows this process in action, and repeats it. The outcome is not random.

View Post


But every mutation starts with only one member.So, population = individual.

#46 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:20 AM

This is more word games. Disputing the validity of the theory is the heart of the issue, falcone. Why would you say it is irrelevant?

Not word games, I'm disappoined you think so. Let me try and explain why I said it's irrelevant.

When we talk about evolution and how it does/doesn't apply to life, I can't help but notice how emotive it all gets...

*snip* what evolutionists have swallowed when they try to protect their precious mindlessly directed/undirected processes...

*snip*now we have pretend animations of mating clocks

*snip*their wonderful fairytale of evolution scrutinized


So let's take it back a step and consider just the basics of random mutations, natural selection, and of course, time (forgot to mention that earlier).

Just watch the video for what it is. Forget about applying it to bacteria, zebras and crocodiles. It shows the mechanism of evolution in action. It shows how random mutations and natural selection combine, over time, to produce a non random outcome. It demonstrably works and delivers predictable results. You can download the code from the description of the video and try it yourself if you like.

To say that the basic mechanism of evolution produces random results is simply wrong and indefensible. It produces "things" (please note, I'm being careful not to say "life" here) that are best adapted to their environment.

However, in saying all that, creationists here argue that this mechanism does not apply to life on Earth. Evolutionists disagree, and that's what we're all here discussing.

Note: The evolutionary process is actually implemented in product development. Don't have time now, but I'll look some stuff up and post it later

#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:24 AM

You should watch the video - it shows this process in action, and repeats it. The outcome is not random.

View Post

Well, the video plugs in assumptions of design. We're not the ones with the problem. We know things are, in fact, directed...

...By God!

Let's recap what evolution wants to convince us of:

Evolution is not directed by intelligence.

Intelligent Design = Big No No (The courts have so ruled. So let it be written. So let it be done... :angry: )

Evolution is a by-product of natural selection and natural selection itself is a by-product of freakish lightening strikes in a primordial goo pond.

Not chance but time and necessity. :blink:

Natural selection is non-random while natural selection (remember non-random) is driven by random mutations. :huh:

Since chance has been discovered to be a non-force. It is no longer a viable candidate to displace God so we will displace him with a heaping helping of contradictions:

Evolution is an undirected process directed by natural selection. :blink:

Everything in the Universe is the by-product of nothing exploding. :huh:

Things aren't designed it's just an illusion...

Posted Image



#48 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:26 AM

It is a matter of chance for that individual member of the species.

Yep.

Remember though that evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

This is a word game, and it won't hold water. Populations are made up of individuals. And 'selection' (death) happens to individuals.

But then some evolutionists claim evolution happens to genes. There doesn't seem to be much promise of a consensus, dogmatic propaganda notwithstanding.

Over time, the individuals with the 51% chance of survival will replace the ones with the 50% chance of survival.

That is far from certain.

You should watch the video - it shows this process in action, and repeats it. The outcome is not random.

View Post

It's either random, or they cheated. Any time probability is involved, so is chance. You can't have one without the other.

If evolutionists were consistent, they'd have no choice but to understand. Who is it always saying any odds, no matter how high, must have been overcome, "because here we are!"

I think this is much more a matter of loyalty to the clergy than anyone thinking they can make a sound argument that leads to the desired conclusion. What's the penalty for admitting Dawkins is wrong?

Talk about flip-flopping. One doesn't have to go to abiogenesis to get contradictions. One only need go as far as the 'partner' of 'selection'. Just ask what the chances are of stringing together a handful of just-the-right mutations. Then you'll get an earful of how infinitesimal chances still have a chance to take place.

Now a 50 to 51 % chance is far from infinitesimal! In fact, it has only 1 chance in 101 of making an impact! So in that sense, evolutionists are still believing in overcoming stiff odds. Maybe that's the appeal?

#49 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:44 AM

...Tying Christianity together with mythology and superstition...

One of the reasons I'm here is to expose myself to worldviews that seem very alien to me, and try to understand them. So far, I don't.

Lumping belief in God with superstitious belief is exactly what athiests do. It's the same thing. It's interesting to note that Christians often think athiests reject God as if we are rejecting something real.

To us, he's not - just like Thor, Zeus and Angus of the Brugh aren't real to you. You don't reject or turn your back on them because they're not real in the first place.

I wonder if you can imagine what that's like. Having grown up in a Christian environment with Christian parents, I can imagine it's a very weird concept for Christians to get their head around.

Sorry, completely off topic - just thought I'd throw that in :blink:

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:59 AM

One of the reasons I'm here is to expose myself to worldviews that seem very alien to me, and try to understand them. So far, I don't.

View Post


Maybe you should let Christians explain what Christianity is, instead of using Richard Dawkins' bad caricatures as a rule of interpretation.

I think letting other worldviews speak for themselves is the only way to understand. If you let them define their own terms, they either succeed or fail on their own pronouncements. However, I could understand why you don't understand us yet if you are just looking for talking points.

I'm not saying this to be rude. I'm trying to help. Falcone, I'm totally with you. It is very important that when we interpret what other people believe that we don't use straw man arguments or false claims. It is a temptation to be avoided and sometimes easier said than done. We are all humans that make lots of errors.

Maybe you can help your understanding by joining this thread:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1912

I think the biggest question that can bridge two people's worldviews is; What is truth?

#51 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 22 December 2008 - 08:01 AM

It's either random, or they cheated.

That's an astonishing comment. You make it very difficult to have any sort of constructive discussion with stuff like this.

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 08:12 AM

That's an astonishing comment. You make it very difficult to have any sort of constructive discussion with stuff like this.

View Post


How do you claim that natural selection is proven with a program that demonstrates clocks mating on a platform that was designed?

#53 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 December 2008 - 08:40 AM

That's an astonishing comment. You make it very difficult to have any sort of constructive discussion with stuff like this.

View Post

It's a straightforward dichotomy. Random input results in random output. There's no way around it.

As far as constructive discussions go, I see nothing constructive about peddling pure nonsense. I can make a better argument that up is down than anyone has so far made that random is nonrandom.

The more science pushes evolutionism into a corner, the more blatantly false statements we encounter. They should try retreating to any small kernel of truth they can find - it's just a better strategy. Who's going to buy into a religion when they can see right up front that they'll need to adopt a thousand obvious falsehoods? It's more trouble than it's worth. One can just make up one's own lies and decide to be happy with them. It's just far more efficient, and there'll be no lack of fellowship, if that's a concern.

#54 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 22 December 2008 - 08:41 AM

How do you claim that natural selection is proven with a program that demonstrates clocks mating on a platform that was designed?

View Post

The program demonstrates random mutations and natural selection combining to produce a 'best fit'. All I am saying is that there is no random outcome. You get a variant of the 'best fit' every time.

#55 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 09:26 AM

The program demonstrates random mutations and natural selection combining to produce a 'best fit'. All I am saying is that there is no random outcome. You get a variant of the 'best fit' every time.

View Post


So random causation = non-random outcome

So explain again how a random mutation causes non-random results?

randomness produces non-randomness :huh:

Huh, interesting logic. :angry:

It goes right along with nothing exploding and producing everything...

I especially like the way you surreptitiously used a design term "program" to defend your random mating clocks. :blink:

#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 09:40 AM

Here is that video again:

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

The creator (no pun intended) of this video was nice enough to show us the code for his mating clocks starting at the 1:30 marker.

Do you suppose that code could have evolved?

I'm gonna close my eyes and imagine...

...there it is...

just look at that code evolving in my imagination... :blink:

FZFG5PKw504

#57 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 22 December 2008 - 10:35 AM

There's a bunch of 'bits' that can join together in multiple ways. If that's all you have, then yes, the outcome will be a randomly bunch of joined together bits.

But that's not the case. You also have a selection filter which says that that if randomly joined bits *a+b* happen to be better at telling the time than randomly joined bits *b+c*, then *a+b* will 'kill' *b+c*

Eventually, *a+b* will dominate if not entirely constitute the population. This happens every time. The outcome is predictable, it is not random.

As the process is repeated, you end up with better and better clocks. You might not get identical clocks every time, but they all have the same key time telling features. You never end up with a bunch of randomly joined bits.

That's all there is to it. I'm not sure what your objection is - are you saying that this process could eventually produce randomly joined 'bits' that don't tell the time?

#58 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 22 December 2008 - 10:45 AM

FZFG5PKw504


Quote: "Evolution teaches that energy such as lightning or heat plus matter can occasionally create new life"
:lol: :lol: :lol:

#59 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 10:53 AM

That's all there is to it. I'm not sure what your objection is - are you saying that this process could eventually produce randomly joined 'bits' that don't tell the time?

View Post

I'm saying that you believe a fairytale and you've totally ignored what I said. That's okay but don't look at us when you fail to understand other worldviews. It seems to me you aren't trying.

One of the reasons I'm here is to expose myself to worldviews that seem very alien to me, and try to understand them. So far, I don't.

View Post

I think you'll have more success if you drop the atheistic pretensions to what Christianity is and open up to believing that what we say is actually what we believe. It's not that hard but it requires correction.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 11:00 AM

Quote: "Evolution teaches that energy such as lightning or heat plus matter can occasionally create new life"

View Post

You're an atheist.

Tell us what makes God so unlikely? Why is it so easy to disregard a maker?

Well, we're a product of mindless/causeless evolution, right?

According to atheists it's more plausible to believe that a scenario in the past combined energy and matter in such a way that it is simply time and necessity that life would develop all by itself, right?

The faith statement becomes:

It happened long ago and far away and soon science will answer this question.

So what are you laughing about? :lol:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users