Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Loungehead

Random Misconception

Recommended Posts

I've noticed many Creationists have the misconception that natural selection is "random".

 

I know Evolutionists do not think the evolutionary process is random. Darwin for instance makes the distinction between artificial selection and natural selection as a difference between types of selection pressures. Artifical selection in breeding is guided by human selection for specific traits, while natural selection of traits is guided by environment or group competition (as in predator and prey examples). Neither of which are random. Human determinants (artificial) or environmental determinants (natural) constitute the selection pressure.

 

I can see how mutation, as part of natural selection, might be considered "random", because changes to a DNA sequence (outside the laboratory) are unpredictable. But even they are not random in the strictest sense, because chemical changes in the DNA sequence can accounted.

 

So why do Creationists insist natural selection is random?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed many Creationists have the misconception that natural selection is "random". 

 

-snippity snip snip-

 

So why do Creationists insist natural selection is random?

40862[/snapback]

They insist that Evolution is a totally random process to convince the lay-person that Evolution could not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed many Creationists have the misconception that natural selection is "random". 

 

I know Evolutionists do not think the evolutionary process is random.  Darwin for instance makes the distinction between artificial selection and natural selection as a difference between types of selection pressures.  Artifical selection in breeding is guided by human selection for specific traits, while natural selection of traits is guided by environment or group competition (as in predator and prey examples).  Neither of which are random.  Human determinants (artificial) or environmental determinants (natural) constitute the selection pressure.

 

I can see how mutation, as part of natural selection, might be considered "random", because changes to a DNA sequence (outside the laboratory) are unpredictable.  But even they are not random in the strictest sense, because chemical changes in the DNA sequence can accounted.

 

So why do Creationists insist natural selection is random?

40862[/snapback]

Mutation is random. A mutation be beneficial in a specific environment is random too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutation is random. A mutation be beneficial in a specific environment is random too.

40874[/snapback]

I acknowledged that a mutation can be considered random in that it cannot be predicted when a mutation will occur. However, why it occurs can be accounted for, e.g. radiation, viruses, and chemicals. So, it is not random in the strictest sense; because there are causal processes that lead to mutation.

 

The alternative is there is no randomness in nature. But then how do we account for diversity, and chaotic systems like cloud and snowflake formation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mullers Ratchet is an explanation of why S@xual reproduction evolved,but deleterious mutations have been accumulating in cyano bacteria for billions of years without the species going extinct or even changing at all. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Darkness45

Mutations are random. Mutations can be accounted for by radiation, viruses, and simple mess ups during DNA replication, and these things for the most part are random. Yet! The editing processes, natural selection, is not random. While there may be a few flukes that get by when they shouldn't or those that make it that shouldn't, the processes overall is far from random.

 

To say that evolution is completely random because mutations are random or that evolution is completely non-random because of natural selection and the we know the processes of mutation, has lost the scope of the bigger perspective. Evolution is passive, but there's enough structure in nature to allow it to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed many Creationists have the misconception that natural selection is "random". 

 

I know Evolutionists do not think the evolutionary process is random.  Darwin for instance makes the distinction between artificial selection and natural selection as a difference between types of selection pressures.  Artifical selection in breeding is guided by human selection for specific traits, while natural selection of traits is guided by environment or group competition (as in predator and prey examples).  Neither of which are random.  Human determinants (artificial) or environmental determinants (natural) constitute the selection pressure.

 

I can see how mutation, as part of natural selection, might be considered "random", because changes to a DNA sequence (outside the laboratory) are unpredictable.  But even they are not random in the strictest sense, because chemical changes in the DNA sequence can accounted.

 

So why do Creationists insist natural selection is random?

40862[/snapback]

Implying there is direction is also implying a "Director". Need and the need being fulfilled is showing intelligence.

 

Example: If I go to a restaurant to order food, does the waiter already know what I want? He does if I tell (communicate) to him. And he cannot fulfill my request unless he has the intelligence and know how to do so. Now if I set there for 100 million years, and the waiter stood their for a 100 million years. Is that going to make my need anymore closer to being fulfilled? It will if one thing happens. If we both show intelligence and communicate the need, and that need being fulfilled. Can you answer to what communicates the need, then how that need is fulfilled? Because once you step into communication part, you are stepping into intelligent design.

 

Natural selection, to work naturally, cannot have intelligence involved. Which means it has to work randomly.

 

The reason I see this thread even being started, is to try and allow some type of intelligence to make natural selection work. Here is a list of bounderies where intelligence would be implied.

 

1) Direction = Director.

2) Need, and the need being fulfilled = intelligence through communication.

3) Evolving at the same time = shows relation through communication = intelligence.

etc...

 

Totally natural = no type of guidance, direction, or communication. And natural selection is not a poof there it is either (cop out answer). Or given enough time anything can happen (cop out answer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a little right and a little wrong Ike, but for once I wanna concentrate on the part I think you're right about :D

 

Natural selection does require a degree of intelligence. The animal is selected based on how well it can adapt to it's environment. If it is smart and resourceful, it has a much better chance of surviving.

 

So working naturally, natural selection can use intelligence as a driving factor. I mean to say, that was one of the main factors in humans becoming the dominant species.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed many Creationists have the misconception that natural selection is "random". 

40862[/snapback]

If it isn't random, then who's doing the selecting? Furthermore, who did the first selecting to get it all started? The seems to be a bit of a logical and scientific misconception that the evolutionists need to deal with here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a little right and a little wrong Ike, but for once I wanna concentrate on the part I think you're right about :D

 

Natural selection does require a degree of intelligence. The animal is selected based on how well it can adapt to it's environment. If it is smart and resourceful, it has a much better chance of surviving.

 

So working naturally, natural selection can use intelligence as a driving factor. I mean to say, that was one of the main factors in humans becoming the dominant species.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40904[/snapback]

That sounds fine Arch, but here's the problem. Each time intelligence is used or implied, the question arises as to what is doing the selecting? And how does the selector know what to give the animal to give it a better chance to survive?

 

Example: Humans come from all walks of life. We all do different things to make a living and survive. Being a mechanic, there are several times I could have used an extra arm to turn a wrench while the other 2 arms held the object in place. Even though I needed and wanted a third arm, do you think that further down the gene pool a arm will just grow right where it's needed and is the most handy for future mechanics to use?

 

Another example: If a animal has no teeth, but sure could use some. How does teeth grow in the right spot, being the right size, right number, etc..?

 

Evolution to me is like building a car with no fore-thought. It's like as I build it I find I need a bolt, or a screw, and poof it appears. Or a piston, carburator, etc... And it just magically appears in the right configuration, the right size, and made out of the type of material needed.

 

Whether living or non-living matter. Something knows exactly what is needed, how it needs to be designed. What ceels need to be made to make it work, etc..

 

Like the vision deal. How did a biological cell and system know that it needed to see, then know exactly what to make in order to see (an eyeball a certain size and special cells, and a vision center of the brain to process what is seen)? Time to infinity would not help the problem I see with evolution on this issue. I have yet to see anyone even come close to answering these questions. But what I often see is an attempt to do so which usually is pretty lame. Then when challenged on the attempt they get offensive and mad. Why? When you answer a question as if you know the answer, you have committed to it. Doing this means you have hung your integrity out there for everyone to see. So when it's challenged, it's taken personally. Which is not scientific.

 

Posted Image

 

How does the system know what size to make the eye?

How does the system know clear fluid is needed?

How does it know to what pressure to keep said fluid so eye can function?

How does the system know that rods and cones need to be made so it can see in the day or night?

How does the system know that blood vissels need to go in front of the retina so that it can be protected from the UV rays?

How does it know to place a focusing lens in place?

How does the vision center of the brain know that it will be processing an upside down image and compensate for that?

How does the body know that eye lashes are needed to help control sun glare?

How does the body know exactly where to put these eyeballs?

How does the system know the the eyeball needs to move?

How does the system know that the eyeball needs to stay moistened?

How did did the system know that tears needed to be made when the lifeform cries?

How did the system know that eyelids were needed?

Why different color eyes?

 

Etc....

 

Those are a list of what the eye needs to work. Now what makes the need known, and then how is that need fulfilled (intelligence)? Or were the needs fulfilled randomly?

 

You see the problem we creationist see that evolutionists ignore. Is that maybe a biological thing can mutate, but where does mutations sub for complexity? It cannot. Mutation to a final object means there is a goal. A goal means there is fore-thought, and fore-thought means intelligence.

 

Posted Image

 

As you look at this picture, tell me what told what to do what so that this could be made?

 

And I'll list this again:

How does the system know what size to make the eye?

How does the system know clear fluid is needed?

How does it know to what pressure to keep said fluid so eye can function?

How does the system know that rods and cones need to be made so it can see in the day or night?

How does the system know that blood vissels need to go in front of the retina so that it can be protected from the UV rays?

How does it know to place a focusing lens in place?

How does the vision center of the brain know that it will be processing an upside down image and compensate for that?

How does the body know that eye lashes are needed to help control sun glare?

How does the body know exactly where to put these eyeballs?

How does the system know the the eyeball needs to move?

How does the system know that the eyeball needs to stay moistened?

How did did the system know that tears needed to be made when the lifeform cries?

How did the system know that eyelids were needed?

Why different color eyes?

 

You have no idea, right? Now you see where we see a huge problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alcatraz

Why does there have to be an 'intellegence', 'selector', or 'director'.

 

Is it not possible that this wonderful thing we call life just 'is'?

 

Is it not possible that this wonderful planet we live on just 'is'?

 

Why does an external supernatural force or power need to be included to validate the existence of us or the world around us?

 

I think that this need for a supernatural source to validate our existence says a lot for humanities need for there to be more than what we may see around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll list this again:

1.How does the system know what size to make the eye?

2.How does the system know clear fluid is needed?

3.How does it know to what pressure to keep said fluid so eye can function?

4.How does the system know that rods and cones need to be made so it can see in the day or night?

5.How does the system know that blood vissels need to go in front of the retina so 6.that it can be protected from the UV rays?

7.How does it know to place a focusing lens in place?

8.How does the vision center of the brain know that it will be processing an upside down image and compensate for that?

9.How does the body know that eye lashes are needed to help control sun glare?

10.How does the body know exactly where to put these eyeballs?

11.How does the system know the the eyeball needs to move?

12.How does the system know that the eyeball needs to stay moistened?

13.How did did the system know that tears needed to be made when the lifeform cries?

14.How did the system know that eyelids were needed?

15.Why different color eyes?

 

You have no idea, right? Now you see where we see a huge problem.

40913[/snapback]

Sorry I added numbers to your post to make it easier to answer these questions.

 

1. What we are looking at is the final product. Through the years the eye evolved into the size that it is because creatures with this size eye survived better than those with larger/smaller eyes.

 

2. Again the creatures with clear fluid survived better. It wasn't like the creature thought to itself "wow I wish my eye goop was clear.

 

You know what I just realized...most of these questions can be answered by the same answer. Many different forms came about due to mutations, and the ones that survived had better features, these features then went into the final product.

 

I'll jump to the questions that I think need further thought.

 

10. The body did not 'know' where to evolve the eyeballs, but the creatures genes tell the body where these things need to be 'grown'. It seems to me that this 'design' with the eyeballs on the head, with the other sensory organs worked best as creatures evolved.

 

13. This is an interesting question and I wish I had a better answer for you. I don't think any other creature out there cries when it is sad. So this might be something that is unique to people.

 

 

15. Eye color, at least for humans was brown up to about 10,000 years ago when a random mutation for albinism hit the eye color genes. This created the blue eye color for the first time.

 

The main effect this had on people was completely mental. It provided no other survival benefits. But what it did do was bring S@xual selection into it. This was something different that distinguished males from other males in a group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does there have to be an 'intellegence', 'selector', or 'director'.

40915[/snapback]

Because ALL the empirical and logical evidence we can muster shows that to be the case.

 

 

Is it not possible that this wonderful thing we call life just 'is'?

40915[/snapback]

Can you provide evidence (Logical and scientific) of anything that "Just Is"?

 

Is it not possible that this wonderful planet we live on just 'is'?

40915[/snapback]

Can you provide evidence (Logical and scientific) of anything that "Just Is"?

 

Why does an external supernatural force or power need to be included to validate the existence of us or the world around us?

40915[/snapback]

Why does it not? Why do you want to "believe" all of this complexity either "Just Is" or "Come from nothing" (which is what the "Just Is" model implies). Do you not like the fact that everything that is "MUST" come from something (logically and scientifically)? Or is the fact that God caused all of this bother you to the point that you're willing to swallow the "Just is" philosophy?

 

 

I think that this need for a supernatural source to validate our existence says a lot for humanities need for there to be more than what we may see around us.

40915[/snapback]

I think the need to suppress ALL the evidence for God from one's self, then the further need to attempt to use non-logic and non-science to close one's eyes to that evidence speaks volumes. We validate our existence by accepting the truth around us, not by hiding from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implying there is direction is also implying a "Director". Need and the need being fulfilled is showing intelligence.

40898[/snapback]

I agree direction implies a "director" for natural selection. It maybe an intelligent entity directing natural selection, or it may be causal factors in the environment, or both.

Example: If I go to a restaurant to order food, does the waiter already know what I want? He does if I tell (communicate) to him. And he cannot fulfill my request unless he has the intelligence and know how to do so. Now if I set there for 100 million years, and the waiter stood their for a 100 million years. Is that going to make my need anymore closer to being fulfilled? It will if one thing happens. If we both show intelligence and communicate the need, and that need being fulfilled. Can you answer to what communicates the need, then how that need is fulfilled? Because once you step into communication part, you are stepping into intelligent design.

The waiter will not know specifically what you want, but he will know that it will be food you are ordering and within the range of the menu. Unless you have a habit of going into Italian restuarants and asking for Chinese.

:D

 

He won't know what your specific order is, but the chef will have already done food prep for the evening, the kitchen hands will have prepared cutlery, and the waiter has your table prepared. All the restuarant is waiting for is you to replicate, opps, I mean communicate, the order in your head. And as long as you don't stutter or confuse your words, the order should pass successfully from your thoughts to his note pad without any mutation, opps I mean communication breakdown. The rest is already determined by the service.

Natural selection, to work naturally, cannot have intelligence involved. Which means it has to work randomly.

Are you suggesting God cannot intervene in the selection process should he desire?

The reason I see this thread  even being started, is to try and allow some type of intelligence to make natural selection work. Here is a list of bounderies where intelligence would be implied.

 

1) Direction = Director.

2) Need, and the need being fulfilled = intelligence through communication.

3) Evolving at the same time = shows relation through communication = intelligence.

etc...

 

Totally natural = no type of guidance, direction, or communication.  And natural selection is not a poof there it is either (cop out answer). Or given enough time anything can happen (cop out answer).

40898[/snapback]

The reason I started this thread because of what Geir said in another thread, " see clearly that a peacock's tail is a creation and that it's not a product of random unguided processes."

 

Evolutionists argue that the peacocks tail would have been guided by natural selection, which is determined by factors such as environment, s*xual selection, or competition (both in group and predator-prey relationships). In terms of what evolutionist argue, I think it wrong to say they think the process of natural selection is unguided. Unless "unguided" means unpredictable. In which case it just stating the obvious e.g. other than taxes, death and the decisions we make, our lifes are random unguided processes (I don't believe in clairvoyance)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  What we are looking at is the final product.  Through the years the eye evolved into the size that it is because creatures with this size eye survived better than those with larger/smaller eyes.

 

2. Again the creatures with clear fluid survived better.  It wasn't like the creature thought to itself "wow I wish my eye goop was clear.

 

You know what I just realized...most of these questions can be answered by the same answer.  Many different forms came about due to mutations, and the ones that survived had better features, these features then went into the final product.

40920[/snapback]

Your answer is incomplete. It's not just a matter of the creature surviving, it also requires the creature producing offspring that inherit the traits, which in turn gives them and their offspring a survival advantage over others in population with the smaller, weaker, and less useful eyes. The disadvantaged obviously decrease within the population and the population becomes defined by the new features, and those that have advantages in that population determine the next generation, so on and so on ..... each advantage accumulating over millions of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your answer is incomplete.  It's not just a matter of the creature surviving, it also requires the creature producing offspring that inherit the traits, which in turn gives them and their offspring a survival advantage over others in population with the smaller, weaker, and less useful eyes.  The disadvantaged obviously decrease within the population and the population becomes defined by the new features, and those that have advantages in that population determine the next generation, so on and so on .....  each advantage accumulating over millions of years.

40928[/snapback]

 

:D sorry about that! I didn't think it was necessary to go into that much detail, but you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does there have to be an 'intellegence', 'selector', or 'director'.

 

Is it not possible that this wonderful thing we call life just 'is'?

 

Is it not possible that this wonderful planet we live on just 'is'?

 

Why does an external supernatural force or power need to be included to validate the existence of us or the world around us?

 

I think that this need for a supernatural source to validate our existence says a lot for humanities need for there to be more than what we may see around us.

40915[/snapback]

Why not a intelligent selector director? What you or me wants to believe makes no difference on what is. And I believe that I have logically shown that intelligence is involved.

 

Let me reword what you said:

 

I think that this need for a natural source to validate our existence says a lot for humanities need for there to be more than what we may see around us.

If you could have debunked what I said with better logic, you would have. But instead you appeal to a persons need as for the only reason they believe this. Well I can do the same for your end, but what does that prove scientifically? Nothing. Just as when you did it.

 

With all due respect...

 

I have no problem with your rejection of God. It's your choice. But to try and make what I just logically proved look stupid because you cannot do better. Is justifying your belief by means of making others look stupid (not science). If you have better science, post it. If you have better logic, post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I added numbers to your post to make it easier to answer these questions.

 

1.  What we are looking at is the final product.  Through the years the eye evolved into the size that it is because creatures with this size eye survived better than those with larger/smaller eyes.

Final product is just that, a final product. You cannot prove they evolved because you cannot show the process. Fossils like processes for evolution, are "interpreted" to have happened. I would not more accept that evidence no more that you would accept my interpretation that God exists. Your main complain would be: I can't see Him. Which is also my complain about evolution. You say this and that happened, but the closes you can come to showing actual processes is animation.

 

2. Again the creatures with clear fluid survived better.  It wasn't like the creature thought to itself "wow I wish my eye goop was clear.

 

You know what I just realized...most of these questions can be answered by the same answer.  Many different forms came about due to mutations, and the ones that survived had better features, these features then went into the final product.

That's because when you believe in random chances, all the answers become a broad spectrum to answer anything and everything. It's like me claiming God did it. Except in this case you claim evolution did it.

 

I'll jump to the questions that I think need further thought.

 

10.  The body did not 'know' where to evolve the eyeballs, but the creatures genes tell the body where these things need to be 'grown'.  It seems to me that this 'design' with the eyeballs on the head, with the other sensory organs worked best as creatures evolved.

How did the genes know? Can you show that genes have this type of intelligence?

 

Example: Hey gene k, I think we need some eyeballs. Let's get together with genes x, y and z and make some eyeballs. I hear there is a lot to see if we can only see..

 

13.  This is an interesting question and I wish I had a better answer for you.  I don't think any other creature out there cries when it is sad. So this might be something that is unique to people.

Elephants do. They visit their family and friends grave sites. They show emotion that you can see in their eyes and face. Tears well up in their eyes as they remember their dead loved ones. Some even show anger instead of sorrow.

 

15.  Eye color, at least for humans was brown up to about 10,000 years ago when a random mutation for albinism hit the eye color genes.  This created the blue eye color for the first time. 

Is there absolute evidence of this?

 

The main effect this had on people was completely mental.  It provided no other survival benefits.  But what it did do was bring S@xual selection into it.  This was something different that distinguished males from other males in a group.

40920[/snapback]

It would seem you have this interpretation - the process thing down pat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree direction implies a "director" for natural selection.  It maybe an intelligent entity directing natural selection, or it may be causal factors in the environment, or both.

Being able to continually move the goal post if ant answer is wrong, shows the inability to obtain the correct answer.

 

The waiter will not know specifically what you want, but he will know that it will be food you are ordering and within the range of the menu.  Unless you have a habit of going into Italian restuarants and asking for Chinese.

:lol:

He won't know what your specific order is, but the chef will have already done food prep for the evening, the kitchen hands will have prepared cutlery, and the waiter has your table prepared.  All the restuarant is waiting for is you to replicate, opps, I mean communicate, the order in your head.  And as long as you don't stutter or confuse your words, the order should pass successfully from your thoughts to his note pad without any mutation, opps I mean communication breakdown.  The rest is already determined by the service.

And all of this takes place because of random chance, or intelligence?

 

Are you suggesting God cannot intervene in the selection process should he desire?

Yes, in God's creation He never claimed that his creation was unfinished and needed to develope more. Man was created a man. As being in God's image.

 

The reason I started this thread because of what Geir said in another thread, " see clearly that a peacock's tail is a creation and that it's not a product of random unguided processes."

What would tell the body and system of the peacock to grow feathers like it does? Did 2 genes get togehter and have dinner and discuss the issue? If you are going to imply intelligence some where, the process of this intelligence needs to be shown. If not it becomes a guess because it's not scientific when the process cannot be shown.

 

Evolutionists argue that the peacocks tail would have been guided by natural selection, which is determined by factors such as environment, s*xual selection, or competition (both in group and predator-prey relationships).  In terms of what evolutionist argue, I think it wrong to say they think the process of natural selection is unguided.  Unless "unguided" means unpredictable.  In which case it just stating the obvious e.g. other than taxes, death and the decisions we make, our lifes are random unguided processes (I don't believe in clairvoyance)?

40927[/snapback]

So the peacock's system one day says to itself: We need this sexy feathers to attract a mate. Now let's make them also scary, and dominate looking. So what parts of the peacock's system thought this up? And where did their intelligence come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to continually move the goal post if ant answer is wrong, shows the inability to obtain the correct answer.

40953[/snapback]

You'll need to elaborate. Nothing is worst than a person accusing someone else of doing something wrong and then failing to explain what they did wrong, so they can learn from it.

 

All I was saying was selection pressures guides evolution, in evolutionary theory these selection pressures occur purely through causality in nature, but we could claim God intervenes in selection pressures.

 

There is no "goal post" moving, just speculation about whether God can intervene in evolution. And to me it seems a possibility. But then again I'm not confident you actually know what "moving the goal post" fallacy means (argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded). I haven't demanded any greater evidence for evolution or God. So, it really seems more like you're making a veiled attempt at a red herring by accusing me of something that doesn't even relate to what I said.

 

But if it makes you feel better, sure I'll admit to moving the "goal posts" (whatever that means to you). I don't see myself as being above humility.

And all of this takes place because of random chance, or intelligence?

Neither. It occurs by transcription. The copy of information from your mouth to paper (by the waiter). Of course in the restaurant example there are intelligent beings involved in the process, but don't confuse their intelligence with the process. Because gene replication is essentially the same thing. The copying of genetic information, through chemical process that do not require an intelligent mind to tell the RNA what to transcribe. They just copy whatever is there.

 

A simply analogy might be the filling a container with liquid. Nobody needs to tell the liquid to fill up every corner of the container. It does it naturally through the fluidity of liquid and force asserted on it within the container by gravity. The water "copies" the shape of the container.

Yes, in God's creation He never claimed that his creation was unfinished and needed to develope more. Man was created a man. As being in God's image.

Cool, I have no problem with that. I think evolutionary theory is quite compatible with the God concept.

What would tell the body and system of the peacock to grow feathers like it does?

Selection pressures. I don't know that much about peacocks, so don't take what I say as what the Evolutionists claim about peacocks, but I think they would argue something like this:

 

S*xual selection pressure might be one factor, in that peahens are attracted to males with the bigger and brighter feathers. So successful mating leads to offspring who have large feathers, and this next generation of peacocks with the largest feathers are selected for mating, so on and so on. The female drive for large feathers, increases the survival rates of large feathered peacocks, and drives selection in that direction.

 

Enviromental selection pressure might be another, domestication of peafowl by humans has created a safe environment in which peacocks can afford to be slow and cumbersome. In the wild large feathers might be a disadvantage, and peacocks might evolve to have smaller feathers, because small feathered peacocks may be faster, and more able to survive. The female drive would still be for large feathers, but the mating selection would consist of the largest of the smaller feathered peacocks.

 

There may be physiological selection pressures (i.e. maybe feathers have physiological functions not yet identified). There may be neutral selection pressures involved, such as genetic drift.

Did 2 genes get togehter and have dinner and discuss the issue? If you are going to imply intelligence some where, the process of this intelligence needs to be shown. If not it becomes a guess because it's not scientific when the process cannot be shown.

No, the DNA dines on its own, and RNA (the waiter) comes along and copies the order.

So the peacock's system one day says to itself: We need this sexy feathers to attract a mate. Now let's make them also scary, and dominate looking. So what parts of the peacock's system thought this up? And where did their intelligence come from?

40953[/snapback]

Evolution does not claim an intelligence guided process, so I don't understand why you insist on inserting intelligence in the theory. Evolution claims a nature guided process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I acknowledged that a mutation can be considered random in that it cannot be predicted when a mutation will occur.  However, why it occurs can be accounted for, e.g. radiation, viruses, and chemicals.  So, it is not random in the strictest sense; because there are causal processes that lead to mutation.

 

You have a misconception here.

 

Random does not mean without cause.

Random means unpredictable.

 

The alternative is there is no randomness in nature.  But then how do we account for diversity, and chaotic systems like cloud and snowflake formation?

 

Of course there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll need to elaborate.  Nothing is worst than a person accusing someone else of doing something wrong and then failing to explain what they did wrong, so they can learn from it.

 

All I was saying was selection pressures guides evolution, in evolutionary theory these selection pressures occur purely through causality in nature, but we could claim God intervenes in selection pressures.

 

There is no "goal post" moving, just speculation about whether God can intervene in evolution.  And to me it seems a possibility.  But then again I'm not confident you actually know what "moving the goal post" fallacy means (argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded).  I haven't demanded any greater evidence for evolution or God.  So, it really seems more like you're making a veiled attempt at a red herring by accusing me of something that doesn't even relate to what I said.

You said: I agree direction implies a "director" for natural selection. It maybe an intelligent entity directing natural selection, or it may be causal factors in the environment, or both.

 

If we break this down, we find thre possible answers.

 

1) Director for natural selection.

2) Intelligent entity directing natural selection.

3) Casual factors in the enviroment.

 

Goal post #1 is #1. And if it's wrong let's go to goal post #2 which is #2. And if goal post #2 is wrong we just go to goal post #3. And if that don't work use both. So the goal post was actually moved 4 times. And it's being used as a cover for if you are wrong on eith one of your claims.

 

But if it makes you feel better, sure I'll admit to moving the "goal posts" (whatever that means to you). I don't see myself as being above humility.

 

Neither.  It occurs by transcription.  The copy of information from your mouth to paper (by the waiter).  Of course in the restaurant example there are intelligent beings involved in the process, but don't confuse their intelligence with the process.  Because gene replication is essentially the same thing.  The copying of genetic information, through chemical process that do not require an intelligent mind to tell the RNA what to transcribe.  They just copy whatever is there.

So the process has to be already written then copied? It means there was a writer.

 

A simply analogy might be the filling a container with liquid.  Nobody needs to tell the liquid to fill up every corner of the container.  It does it naturally through the fluidity of liquid and force asserted on it within the container by gravity.  The water "copies" the shape of the container.

You analogy uses a non-complex system as your example to a complex one.

 

Cool, I have no problem with that.  I think evolutionary theory is quite compatible with the God concept.

When evolution controls the God concept. But if God is in control then there is a problem, correct?

 

Selection pressures.  I don't know that much about peacocks, so don't take what I say as what the Evolutionists claim about peacocks, but I think they would argue something like this:

 

S*xual selection pressure might be one factor, in that peahens are attracted to males with the bigger and brighter feathers.  So successful mating leads to offspring who have large feathers, and this next generation of peacocks with the largest feathers are selected for mating, so on and so on.  The female drive for large feathers, increases the survival rates of large feathered peacocks, and drives selection in that direction.

But if small feathers are encoded, it's still going to pop up.

 

Enviromental selection pressure might be another, domestication of peafowl by humans has created a safe environment in which peacocks can afford to be slow and cumbersome.  In the wild large feathers might be a disadvantage, and peacocks might evolve to have smaller feathers, because small feathered peacocks may be faster, and more able to survive.  The female drive would still be for large feathers, but the mating selection would consist of the largest of the smaller feathered peacocks.

And some female peacocks maybe scared of the large feathers. And only mate with the small ones.

 

There may be physiological selection pressures (i.e. maybe feathers have physiological functions not yet identified).  There may be neutral selection pressures involved, such as genetic drift.

Selection = selector.

 

No, the DNA dines on its own, and RNA (the waiter) comes along and copies the order.

So the order has to be already written. But who writes a totally new order to be copied by RNA?

 

Evolution does not claim an intelligence guided process, so I don't understand why you insist on inserting intelligence in the theory.  Evolution claims a nature guided process.

40963[/snapback]

So every process is explainable naturally? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They insist that Evolution is a totally random process to convince the lay-person that Evolution could not happen.

40865[/snapback]

Just out of curiosity, if it isn't a totally random process, then what is driving it?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a crazy Creationist who thinks evolution is a totally random process. I don't think evolution is a process at all. I have found absolutely no logical, rational or scientific evidence at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, if it isn't a totally random process, then what is driving it?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a crazy Creationist who thinks evolution is a totally random process. I don't think evolution is a process at all. I have found absolutely no logical, rational or scientific evidence at all.

Natural Selection is not random. Natural Selection is a logical, rational and scientific piece of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms