PDA

View Full Version : Great New AronRa video, Evolution is a fact



Pages : [1] 2

firstfloor
08-05-2014, 01:23 AM
For Jorge,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVo7l-dN5og&list=UUAJfDidJyukTekgSRZrjadw

klaus54
08-05-2014, 02:11 PM
Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

That will likely be difficult for anti-evolutionists to parse.

Anyone more articulate than me want to explain that?

K54

phank
08-05-2014, 03:03 PM
I sinceriously doubt anyone can be that articulate, even in principle. After all, one is trying to explain to someone who isn't listening!

I doubt even creationists (at least not Jorge) doubt that species change over time. Some even concede that new species do arise from time to time. But some I'm familiar with deny any possibility of new species, and only grant minor cosmetic change from one generation to another. For this last group, trying to explain the distinction between facts and explanations of the facts is a lost cause. It probably makes little sense to search for a set of mechanisms causing something that does not happen. Others, I guess, demand a mechanism to explain the mind-boggling explosion of new species in the post-Phlud radiation -- a speciation rate which would require speciation to happen fast enough to watch it in real time, as an afternoon's entertainment.

So it's not just that the word "evolution" has been overloaded, to apply to both a set of observations and a set of mechanisms causing those observations. Most of the problem is that creationists don't agree on what the word is supposed to mean. My reading is, a majority of True Creationists use the word as a grab-bag term holding everything they reject, from abiogenesis to the big bang. Since all of reality was recently poofed into existence in one essentially atomic act of creation, there simply is no difference between origin of the universe, origin of life, and origin of species. All are aspects of the same event.

To give Jorge credit here, he is always careful to distinguish between evolution (the observation of change) and evolutionism, the belief that such changes have natural causes. I suggest that this is a useful distinction, since it's between the facts and the mechanisms underlying the facts.

Jorge
08-06-2014, 03:18 AM
For Jorge,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVo7l-dN5og&list=UUAJfDidJyukTekgSRZrjadw

To be frank, I could only stomach the first 8 minutes or so of the video. But that's okay because I did not need any more than that to determine that both of those guys -- especially the scary-looking "all-knowing guru" who resembled a common depiction of Satan (goatee, eyes rolled over towards the top of his skull, etc.) -- did not address the crux of the matter and so ended up wasting most of our time.

I have stated this here on TWeb more times than I care to remember and so I'll be ultra-brief:

There are TWO (2) 'evolutions'. The first, 'evolution', is bona fide science and is a fact. Specifically, it is undoubtedly true (verifiable, testable, observable) that allele frequencies in populations change over time and that these genetic changes are manifested in physical variations within a species. That 'evolution' is FACT.

Then there's the 'Evolution' (note the upper-case 'E') that says that "every living organism today has a single common ancestor that through unguided random mutations and natural selection diversified into tens of millions of species of flora and fauna over a history totaling billions of years".

That 'Evolution' is NOT science - it is not observable, it is not testable, it is not verifiable and, last but not least, it does not logically result when we apply everything that verifiable science knows today. That 'Evolution' is nothing more than a theoretical construct obtained from extrapolating observations beyond all reason and mixing those unrestricted extrapolations with beliefs.

That 'Evolution' is actually part of a metaphysics/ideology/worldview known as Materialism. The problem - a highly sophisticated intellectual fraud - is that 'evolution' and 'Evolution' are purposefully and deceptively intermixed and packaged as a single enterprise which is then labeled as "science". Then, this "science" is fed to the unsuspecting masses through the "education" and media systems. The vast majority of people don't have the education, the interest, the time or the intellect to see through this fraud and so they swallow the 'package' hook, line and sinker not realizing the deadly poison that they are ingesting.

It is up to you to either seek the truth in this matter or to willfully remain in your ignorance. In this post I've given you a pretty good start towards the first option.

Jorge

Roy
08-06-2014, 04:02 AM
To be frank, I could only stomach the first 8 minutes or so of the video. But that's okay because I did not need any more than that to determine that both of those guys -- especially the scary-looking "all-knowing guru" who resembled a common depiction of Satan (goatee, eyes rolled over towards the top of his skull, etc.) -- did not address the crux of the matter and so ended up wasting most of our time.Ok, so you don't know that about the 9-minute mark AronRa actually did mention the distinction you claim was not addressed, citing Dembski and Johnson, and returned to that point at around the 21-minute mark. And you don't know that the reason he didn't cover it in more depth was that OFNF rejected even the level of evolution that you concede is verifiable, testable and observable.


It is up to you to either seek the truth in this matter or to willfully remain in your ignorance. In this post I've given you a pretty good start towards the first option. And by incorrectly guessing at the contents of a video clip you couldn't be bothered to watch to the end, you've firmly cemented yourself in the second option.

Roy

P.S. Don't think that your lie that observable evolution only leads to "variations within a species" wasn't spotted.

tabibito
08-06-2014, 04:26 AM
A long time ago, I also accepted the idea of (for example) a pre-cursor of the cat family adapting and diversifying to become all the varieties of cat now known.
But I did not consider that acceptable evidence existed for the idea of non-cat becoming cat.
Then some years ago I came across the paleontological trace of non-whale becoming the pre-cursor of whales (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text). The evidence could not be refuted - the geological record is as close to conclusive as anyone could reasonably hope for. (The linked article isn't as thorough as the one I found so long ago, but I don't have a copy of that one available.)

rogue06
08-06-2014, 04:45 AM
Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

That will likely be difficult for anti-evolutionists to parse.

Anyone more articulate than me want to explain that?

K54
Evolution is a fact in that it does take place. The theory of evolution attempts to explain this fact. Stephen Jay Gould had an article called Evolution as Fact and Theory (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)

firstfloor
08-06-2014, 05:01 AM
To be frank, I could only stomach the first 8 minutes or so of the video.Jorge, you missed the best bit – about the recurrent laryngeal nerve – at 13:40 - guaranteed to blow the mind of even the staunchest creationist. Your cup is half full. Good luck.

TheLurch
08-06-2014, 08:08 AM
Then there's the 'Evolution' (note the upper-case 'E') that says that "every living organism today has a single common ancestor that through unguided random mutations and natural selection diversified into tens of millions of species of flora and fauna over a history totaling billions of years".

That 'Evolution' is NOT science - it is not observable, it is not testable, it is not verifiable and, last but not least, it does not logically result when we apply everything that verifiable science knows today.
A universal common ancestor is most certainly testable. Every genome we sequence, every sample from anywhere we culture, gives us the opportunity to determine if there is a species that falls outside the known range of variation. (i.e., uses some fundamentally different chemistry or mechanism for basic metabolism, replicating DNA, etc.). It's important not to confuse "not yet falsified" with "cannot be falsified."

klaus54
08-06-2014, 09:36 AM
To be frank, I could only stomach the first 8 minutes or so of the video. But that's okay because I did not need any more than that to determine that both of those guys -- especially the scary-looking "all-knowing guru" who resembled a common depiction of Satan (goatee, eyes rolled over towards the top of his skull, etc.) -- did not address the crux of the matter and so ended up wasting most of our time.

I have stated this here on TWeb more times than I care to remember and so I'll be ultra-brief:

There are TWO (2) 'evolutions'. The first, 'evolution', is bona fide science and is a fact. Specifically, it is undoubtedly true (verifiable, testable, observable) that allele frequencies in populations change over time and that these genetic changes are manifested in physical variations within a species. That 'evolution' is FACT.

Then there's the 'Evolution' (note the upper-case 'E') that says that "every living organism today has a single common ancestor that through unguided random mutations and natural selection diversified into tens of millions of species of flora and fauna over a history totaling billions of years".

That 'Evolution' is NOT science - it is not observable, it is not testable, it is not verifiable and, last but not least, it does not logically result when we apply everything that verifiable science knows today. That 'Evolution' is nothing more than a theoretical construct obtained from extrapolating observations beyond all reason and mixing those unrestricted extrapolations with beliefs.

That 'Evolution' is actually part of a metaphysics/ideology/worldview known as Materialism. The problem - a highly sophisticated intellectual fraud - is that 'evolution' and 'Evolution' are purposefully and deceptively intermixed and packaged as a single enterprise which is then labeled as "science". Then, this "science" is fed to the unsuspecting masses through the "education" and media systems. The vast majority of people don't have the education, the interest, the time or the intellect to see through this fraud and so they swallow the 'package' hook, line and sinker not realizing the deadly poison that they are ingesting.

It is up to you to either seek the truth in this matter or to willfully remain in your ignorance. In this post I've given you a pretty good start towards the first option.

Jorge

Do you understand with difference between fact and theory?

Could you give us your definition of "theory" so that we know you understand it and don't talk past each other?

K54

P.S. Stock response of a Presuppositional Apologist duly noted.

Jorge
08-06-2014, 10:25 AM
A long time ago, I also accepted the idea of (for example) a pre-cursor of the cat family adapting and diversifying to become all the varieties of cat now known.
But I did not consider that acceptable evidence existed for the idea of non-cat becoming cat.
Then some years ago I came across the paleontological trace of non-whale becoming the pre-cursor of whales (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text). The evidence could not be refuted - the geological record is as close to conclusive as anyone could reasonably hope for. (The linked article isn't as thorough as the one I found so long ago, but I don't have a copy of that one available.)

Yes ... I see ... it takes a microgram of "evidence" to convince you of what you wish to believe, while 30 metric tons of flaws with that "evidence" are insufficient to get you to renounce that belief.

Yeah, now I get it! :doh: :doh: :doh:

If you are interested in getting at the truth of this matter, instead of remaining COZI (my term, it means "within your comfort zone of ignorance") then I suggest that you research your whale-evolution "evidence" much deeper than you have.

Otherwise, don't worry about being lonely with those beliefs, lots of like-minded folk here on TWeb.

Jorge

Jorge
08-06-2014, 10:28 AM
Jorge, you missed the best bit – about the recurrent laryngeal nerve – at 13:40 - guaranteed to blow the mind of even the staunchest creationist. Your cup is half full. Good luck.

[sigh ...] I guess I'll have to take some Pepto and watch Satan's look-alike some more.
Oh well ... another 14 minutes of my life wasted! :shrug:

***************************

EDITED TO ADD:

Okay, so I watched it to the end (21:50 - when the music started, I stopped).

It was worse than I dared imagine. This 'Ra' critter (first time I know of him) is a character so full of himself that I'm surprised he managed to fit on the screen. That's not surprising to me - I always say, "deny God and you make yourself one" (another story).

Anyway, I checked your 13:40 laryngeal nerve segment and nearly fell off my chair. The number of logical atrocities committed by 'Ra' were legion - it would take me a week to address and destroy them all. 'Ra' is like essentially all Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists - he has no real comprehension of the connection between logic and evidence or even what those things are. He sounds authoritative (as do most A/TE) but scratch just below the surface and one finds that he has nothing of substance - all he does is parrot the same old nonsense.

The laryngeal nerve example:

At 16:46 to 17:10 he provides computer graphics and a narration that take us from a fish to a giraffe showing the laryngeal nerve progressing through each evolutionary step as his "evidence". Do I really need to tell you what is painfully obvious, namely, that computer-generated graphics and narrations of just-so stories do not constitute "evidence" for Evolution nor does it support 'Ra's' position? Had I been present, 'Ra' would have had to wait until I stopped laughing.

If you're basing yourself on sheer stupidity such as this 'Ra' video then I'm afraid you're being led down a path of destruction. I say again, seek the truth in this matter. Do not take my word on any of this - seek for yourself.

Jorge

tabibito
08-06-2014, 10:53 AM
Speaking of a microgram of evidence opposed to 30 metric tonnes of flaws - how's the whole YEC interpretation of the creation account (Genesis 1, contrasting Genesis 2) working out for you? Does the 12 hour day, evening to morning really stack up? Shouldn't it be morning to evening? Evening to morning is after all, a night, not a day. And how does YEC reconcile the Genesis 1 account of separate days for the creation of plants, animals, and man with the Genesis 2 account of "the day in which all of those were created." It must be quite a difficult task trying to make a natural reading of Genesis fit with a 6 day creation.

klaus54
08-06-2014, 11:19 AM
Yes ... I see ... it takes a microgram of "evidence" to convince you of what you wish to believe, while 30 metric tons of flaws with that "evidence" are insufficient to get you to renounce that belief.

Yeah, now I get it! :doh: :doh: :doh:

If you are interested in getting at the truth of this matter, instead of remaining COZI (my term, it means "within your comfort zone of ignorance") then I suggest that you research your whale-evolution "evidence" much deeper than you have.

Otherwise, don't worry about being lonely with those beliefs, lots of like-minded folk here on TWeb.

Jorge

You still don't get the concept of consilience, do you?

If you claim you do, please do define it for us right here and now.

Thanks!

Roger

P.S. It looks like Jorge's trying a new reptilian debate method -- Using the projection of "anti-consilience" AGAINST evolution!

Anyone else notice this?

Sparko
08-06-2014, 11:39 AM
You still don't get the concept of consilience, do you?

If you claim you do, please do define it for us right here and now.

Thanks!

Roger

P.S. It looks like Jorge's trying a new reptilian debate method -- Using the projection of "anti-consilience" AGAINST evolution!

Anyone else notice this?

I have noticed that you are just as big a troll as Jorge is. Congratulations.

Jorge
08-06-2014, 11:45 AM
Speaking of a microgram of evidence opposed to 30 metric tonnes of flaws - how's the whole YEC interpretation of the creation account (Genesis 1, contrasting Genesis 2) working out for you? Does the 12 hour day, evening to morning really stack up? Shouldn't it be morning to evening? Evening to morning is after all, a night, not a day. And how does YEC reconcile the Genesis 1 account of separate days for the creation of plants, animals, and man with the Genesis 2 account of "the day in which all of those were created." It must be quite a difficult task trying to make a natural reading of Genesis fit with a 6 day creation.

Nope, not difficult at all (piece of cake, actually). All it takes is an honest reading of God's Word employing time-tested, historical-grammatical exegesis/hermeneutics. It is, rather, the Theistic Evolutionist/Old Age Theist that must exercise innumerable contortions and distortions of Scripture in order to make the narrative fit with their worldview.

Sorry to disappoint.

Jorge

Jorge
08-06-2014, 11:47 AM
I have noticed that you are just as big a troll as Jorge is. Congratulations.

"Troll"?

Why don't you send yourself a reprimand/warning, Hypocrite! :glare:

Jorge

klaus54
08-06-2014, 11:48 AM
I have noticed that you are just as big a troll as Jorge is. Congratulations.

Hmm...

What was "trolling" about my post?

I asked Jorge a simple and important question. Consilience is the ultimate stake-in-the-heart of YEC and anti-evolutionism. I want to make sure he understands that meaning of that word.

I also made a comment/conjecture about Jorge's apparent new subject of projection.

Do anti-evolutionists call questioning trolling?

Does calling someone a "troll" end a debate like calling someone a "racist" or a "homophobe"?

Apparently so...

This "debate" gets more interesting to me day after day.

The way you guys squirm and project would make a fascinating topic for a psychology or logic dissertation.

K54

Sparko
08-06-2014, 12:04 PM
"Troll"?

Why don't you send yourself a reprimand/warning, Hypocrite! :glare:

Jorge


Hmm...

What was "trolling" about my post?

I asked Jorge a simple and important question. Consilience is the ultimate stake-in-the-heart of YEC and anti-evolutionism. I want to make sure he understands that meaning of that word.

I also made a comment/conjecture about Jorge's apparent new subject of projection.

Do anti-evolutionists call questioning trolling?

Does calling someone a "troll" end a debate like calling someone a "racist" or a "homophobe"?

Apparently so...

This "debate" gets more interesting to me day after day.

The way you guys squirm and project would make a fascinating topic for a psychology or logic dissertation.

K54

See? almost the exact same response. and a nice troll too by the way.

oxmixmudd
08-06-2014, 12:25 PM
See? almost the exact same response. and a nice troll too by the way.

hmm. The both question being called trolls. They both think you calling them a troll is a sign you aren't quite getting it.

But Jorge just calls you a name and leaves.

Klaus asks questions that I think he hopes will cause you to question your conclusion.

And that is a very big difference I think. For Jorge, he's right, you are wrong no justification needed. For Klaus, there needs to be some support for your conclusion or his. Therefore he puts forth comments that illustrate why he thinks you are wrong. If you could answer those, justify your position, he might be willing to reconsider his own position. Not so Jorge. Nothing and no-one can ever breach his surety on these issues. And even that is a element of pride for Him, for he thinks by being immovable and unconvincable, by not giving any real pause to consider if he might be wrong, he is being faithful to God.

Jim

Sparko
08-06-2014, 12:30 PM
hmm. The both question being called trolls. They both think you calling them a troll is a sign you aren't quite getting it.

But Jorge just calls you a name and leaves.

Klaus asks questions that I think he hopes will cause you to question your conclusion.

And that is a very big difference I think. For Jorge, he's right, you are wrong no justification needed. For Klaus, there needs to be some support for your conclusion or his. Therefore he puts forth comments that illustrate why he thinks you are wrong. If you could answer those, justify your position, he might be willing to reconsider his own position. Not so Jorge. Nothing and no-one can ever breach his surety on these issues. And even that is a element of pride for Him, for he thinks by being immovable and unconvincable, by not giving any real pause to consider if he might be wrong, he is being faithful to God.

Jim


I wasn't speaking about Klaus's specific post, but his general way of interacting in Nat Sci, especially with creationists and Jorge in particular. Very trollish in my opinion. I know I can be trollish at times also, I don't deny that. But Klaus much of the time just seems to be out to pick a fight with "YECs" and Jorge.

rogue06
08-06-2014, 12:37 PM
I know I can be trollish at times also, I don't deny that.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1022/1385478144_06e60d3572.jpg

:whistle:

firstfloor
08-06-2014, 12:46 PM
This 'Ra' critter (first time I know of him) is a character so full of himself that I'm surprised he managed to fit on the screen.Jorge,
You’ve taken incorrigibility to new level. I think it’s a world record. BTW, AronRa is best known for his video series of seventeen “Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism” but has done a heap of other good stuff on religion and biology.

Anyway, I thank you for taking the time to watch the video. It has not had the explosive effect I thought it might but perhaps it will work slowly on your subconscious.

klaus54
08-06-2014, 01:06 PM
See? almost the exact same response. and a nice troll too by the way.

So, do you understand the concept of consilience or not?

If so, do you believe it to be the death knell of anti-evolutionism?

I presume we're all in the pursuit of truth.

K54

klaus54
08-06-2014, 01:14 PM
I wasn't speaking about Klaus's specific post, but his general way of interacting in Nat Sci, especially with creationists and Jorge in particular. Very trollish in my opinion. I know I can be trollish at times also, I don't deny that. But Klaus much of the time just seems to be out to pick a fight with "YECs" and Jorge.

I've FORCEFULLY tried to get Jorge to answer questions.

If continuing to harp on him to answer is trolling, then I be a troll.

So far I've gotten NO answers from him about an unambiguous, plain, simple-even-to-a-child, straightforward, direct, fact-Fact-FACT reading of the first Genesis story.

And since that's ALL he can his hat on in the battle of his 1809 Napoleon YEC artillery against the Abrams M1A1 of scientific consilience, dont'cha think it's appropriate to hound him for a response?

And isn't harping on him to define and understand scientific consilience THE key to the CrEvo "debate"??? So far no answer on that either.

Is that consilience beeswax cutting to close to a nerve?

K54

klaus54
08-06-2014, 01:19 PM
Nope, not difficult at all (piece of cake, actually). All it takes is an honest reading of God's Word employing time-tested, historical-grammatical exegesis/hermeneutics. It is, rather, the Theistic Evolutionist/Old Age Theist that must exercise innumerable contortions and distortions of Scripture in order to make the narrative fit with their worldview.

Sorry to disappoint.

Jorge

Then how's come you CAN'T regale us with the unambiguous, plain, direct, simple-even-to-a-child, straightforward "reading" of the first Genesis story?

The TWeb World awaits...

K54

firstfloor
08-06-2014, 01:53 PM
After a long and happy life Jorge finally meets God:

God – Hello Jorge, come here, lets have a look at you.
Are you a good singer Jorge? Can you give me a scale or something? You know; la, la, la and stuff?

Jorge - ?

God – I’ve got a vacancy in the heavenly choir. I want you to fill it. Okay?

Jorge – Yeah, alright. Do you mind if I ask you a question?

God – Mind? Of course I bloody mind, I’m God for heavens sake. How dare you presume to question Me.

Jorge – Oh.

God – Holy smoke dude, what is it?

Jorge – How did you make the animals?

God – Make the animals? Jorge, have you seen the amount of poo that comes out an elephant’s arse? What do you take me for? Do you think I’m an arsehole designer; is that it? You think I’m in the arsehole manufacturing business, do you? Animals! They’re bloody disgusting, the lot of them.

Jorge – So, er, em,

God – Never mind all that. You get over to Saint Peter. He’s been writing a new hymn. I want you pitch perfect by Saturday. Go on, scoot!

Watch the language

Jorge
08-06-2014, 02:29 PM
hmm. The both question being called trolls. They both think you calling them a troll is a sign you aren't quite getting it.

But Jorge just calls you a name and leaves.

Klaus asks questions that I think he hopes will cause you to question your conclusion.

And that is a very big difference I think. For Jorge, he's right, you are wrong no justification needed. For Klaus, there needs to be some support for your conclusion or his. Therefore he puts forth comments that illustrate why he thinks you are wrong. If you could answer those, justify your position, he might be willing to reconsider his own position. Not so Jorge. Nothing and no-one can ever breach his surety on these issues. And even that is a element of pride for Him, for he thinks by being immovable and unconvincable, by not giving any real pause to consider if he might be wrong, he is being faithful to God.

Jim

You do better when you stay away, O-mudd --- that way you don't provide further evidence of your rabid hatred of God's Word (the honest version of it) and of those that defend It boldly and unashamedly.

Jorge

Jorge
08-06-2014, 03:00 PM
Jorge,
You’ve taken incorrigibility to new level. I think it’s a world record. BTW, AronRa is best known for his video series of seventeen “Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism” but has done a heap of other good stuff on religion and biology.

Anyway, I thank you for taking the time to watch the video. It has not had the explosive effect I thought it might but perhaps it will work slowly on your subconscious.

You call me "incorrigible" because I fail to listen to that 'Ra' idiot? :dizzy:

You have GOT to be kidding me! :no:

That 'Ra' critter exudes dishonesty and a rabid anti-God agenda through his pores.
I mean, it was so intensely thick that I could feel it over the internet.

So, 'Ra' has "17 Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism". I cringe just thinking of the plethora of lies, distortions, misrepresentations and similar sins that he crams into those 17 "Foundations". Come to think of it, they probably mirror much of what is posted here. Come to think of it again, many of the wackos here on TWeb probably got some of their material from 'Ra'.

If I didn't already know that it would be a complete waste of my time, I'd challenge 'Ra' to an exchange. But I know better than that. It would be like challenging P.Z. Myers or Richard Dawkins in the hope that they would learn something, repent and turn towards God. A snowball stands a better chance of making it through a summer in Hell than that event.

Jorge

Jorge
08-06-2014, 03:05 PM
After a long and happy life Jorge finally meets God:

God – Hello Jorge, come here, lets have a look at you.
Are you a good singer Jorge? Can you give me a scale or something? You know; la, la, la and stuff?

Jorge - ?

God – I’ve got a vacancy in the heavenly choir. I want you to fill it. Okay?

Jorge – Yeah, alright. Do you mind if I ask you a question?

God – Mind? Of course I bloody mind, I’m God for heavens sake. How dare you presume to question Me.

Jorge – Oh.

God – Holy smoke dude, what is it?

Jorge – How did you make the animals?

God – Make the animals? Jorge, have you seen the amount of poo that comes out an elephant’s arse? What do you take me for? Do you think I’m an arsehole designer; is that it? You think I’m in the arsehole manufacturing business, do you? Animals! They’re bloody disgusting, the lot of them.

Jorge – So, er, em,

God – Never mind all that. You get over to Saint Peter. He’s been writing a new hymn. I want you pitch perfect by Saturday. Go on, scoot!

Watch the language

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the distinct impression that the
elevator in firstfloor's brain went to basement and never came back up? :lmbo: :lol: :rofl:

Jorge

seer
08-06-2014, 04:29 PM
For Jorge,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVo7l-dN5og&list=UUAJfDidJyukTekgSRZrjadw

I don't get it, this guy said there are not only two choices - randomness or design. He does agree that mutations are random, and since mutations create the novelty for selection to save I don't see how this is anything but random. So I don't see what this third option is.

phank
08-06-2014, 05:15 PM
I don't get it, this guy said there are not only two choices - randomness or design. He does agree that mutations are random, and since mutations create the novelty for selection to save I don't see how this is anything but random. So I don't see what this third option is.

Think of going to a cafeteria, with lots of of random dishes to choose from. You have absolutely no control over which dishes are available, but you get to pick out those you like best. So was your meal random, or was it designed? Clearly there was a random element involved -- the items available for selection. And clearly there was a design element involved - the process of selection itself. In nature, we could reasonably say that environments "design" organisms, by choosing among those random variations organisms make available for selection.

klaus54
08-06-2014, 05:25 PM
You do better when you stay away, O-mudd --- that way you don't provide further evidence of your rabid hatred of God's Word (the honest version of it) and of those that defend It boldly and unashamedly.

Jorge

1) You need to apologize to Jim for that slam on his Christian faith.

2) Stop making the Bible an idol by capitalizing "Word". That honor is reserved for the Logos as per John 1:1. Certainly you're NOT equating the two?

3) You mean the "honest" version (interpretation, BTW!) with which you cannot give an unambiguous, plain, simple-even-to-a-child, straightforward, direct reading of the first Genesis story?

Answer questions, and knock off the Fundy-Wundy bloviation.

K54

klaus54
08-06-2014, 05:31 PM
Is it just me, or does anyone else get the distinct impression that the
elevator in firstfloor's brain went to basement and never came back up? :lmbo: :lol: :rofl:

Jorge

Cue rimshot.

That attempt at humor would embarrass the most schlocky Vaudeville "comedian".

K54

seer
08-06-2014, 06:02 PM
In nature, we could reasonably say that environments "design" organisms, by choosing among those random variations organisms make available for selection.

But are not the environments themselves the result of chance events? And isn't it a chance event that an organism happens to find itself in an environment that selects a specific beneficial mutation? I mean it is possible for a mutation or mutations to have a positive effect in one environment and a negative effect in another environment. So that would be chance also - correct?

phank
08-06-2014, 06:22 PM
But are not the environments themselves the result of chance events? And isn't it a chance event that an organism happens to find itself in an environment that selects a specific beneficial mutation? I mean it is possible for a mutation or mutations to have a positive effect in one environment and a negative effect in another environment. So that would be chance also - correct?

But in my example, the meal you ended up eating was designed. You designed it. Even though the cafeterias available to you might be random, as well as the food in each one. And even if you simply selected a cafeteria at random. You still can't escape the fact that there WAS design involved in putting your meal together.

You are correct that some number and sequence of mutations might be more or less beneficial (or harmful) in one environment than another, but you should not rule out the possibility that an organism with a mutation more suitable for a different environment, might therefore select a different environment (or in population terms, if a species overlaps environments, those who live in some parts of the range will benefit more than those living in a different part). Organisms actually DO preferentially relocate to where living is easier for any reason.

It sounds to me like you are trying to argue that because MOST evolution has random components, therefore ALL aspects of ALL evolution must be random. But you DID design your meal.

oxmixmudd
08-06-2014, 07:41 PM
You do better when you stay away, O-mudd --- that way you don't provide further evidence of your rabid hatred of God's Word (the honest version of it) and of those that defend It boldly and unashamedly.

Jorge

I would not be so bold as to declare what do 'defending God' s word'. First, it doesn't need defense. And second, your tactics leave so much carnage that most who sincerely want to draw others to Christ tend to put as much distance between themselves and you as they can.

Jim

Jorge
08-07-2014, 02:57 AM
I don't get it, this guy said there are not only two choices - randomness or design. He does agree that mutations are random, and since mutations create the novelty for selection to save I don't see how this is anything but random. So I don't see what this third option is.

You do not "see" a third option because none exists. What 'these' people do is use hand-waving, smoke and mirrors, ad hoc definitions and Plutonian logic to conjure-up third and fourth and fifth choices.

The plain fact of the matter is that there are two -- count them, TWO (2) -- options: the universe and all therein (including life) is either the result of purely natural, unguided processes (including elements of 'randomness') or it is the result of purposeful, directed design. Period, end of story, go home.

Jorge

Jorge
08-07-2014, 03:21 AM
I would not be so bold as to declare what do 'defending God' s word'.

That sentence doesn't even make sense. Did you forget to take your meds?



First, it doesn't need defense.

Really??? With that claim you erase thousands of years of Christian Apologetics. :lol:

God's Word most definitely needs to be defended ... defended against those that would mock It and also make every attempt to 'distort' [via deletions, additions, misrepresentations, referring to It as allegory, myth, etc... etc.] It so as to make It say what they want It to say. Oops, I guess that means people like you. Sorry! :blush:



And second, your tactics leave so much carnage that most who sincerely want to draw others to Christ tend to put as much distance between themselves and you as they can.

Jim

Try to be honest for once, okay? The primary reason why you dislike my "tactics" is because I do not hesitate to toss raw salt directly into your 'open-flesh wound' and it must sting like hell when I do that.

I've stated from day one here at TWeb that I do not mince words. I call out hypocrisy and anti-biblical, cultish "Christianity" whenever-wherever I see it. As such, people with beliefs like yours will always find conflict with me. Instead of fighting it, you should try listening with humility. Then and only then do you stand a chance of one day 'getting it'.

I firmly believe that you (1) never truly understood and/or accepted Biblical Christianity and, because of this, (2) you were psychologically scarred from your experience with Biblical Christianity. Many others (e.g., Glenn Morton) are in that same camp.

Jorge

rwatts
08-07-2014, 03:29 AM
That sentence doesn't even make sense. Did you forget to take your meds?


Been reading too much of you, more likely Jorge.

What do you think of my series of posts on the dinosaur to bird tail transition? Still a long way to go, but it shows how even genetics can inform us about the fossil record.

seer
08-07-2014, 04:34 AM
But in my example, the meal you ended up eating was designed. You designed it. Even though the cafeterias available to you might be random, as well as the food in each one. And even if you simply selected a cafeteria at random. You still can't escape the fact that there WAS design involved in putting your meal together.

But some one, intelligence, actually designed the options.


You are correct that some number and sequence of mutations might be more or less beneficial (or harmful) in one environment than another, but you should not rule out the possibility that an organism with a mutation more suitable for a different environment, might therefore select a different environment (or in population terms, if a species overlaps environments, those who live in some parts of the range will benefit more than those living in a different part). Organisms actually DO preferentially relocate to where living is easier for any reason.

True, but it still all random. The mutations that create novelty, and the environment they happen to find themselves. If natural selection is the thing that removes randomness as AronRa suggested then that depends on the environment the creature happens to find itself in -and that too is chance. Then kick it back one step and ask did we have to have these kind of environments in the first place or any life supporting Eco-systems? That too was chance - it is chance all the way down.


It sounds to me like you are trying to argue that because MOST evolution has random components, therefore ALL aspects of ALL evolution must be random. But you DID design your meal.

No, I intelligently chose from different options.

phank
08-07-2014, 05:03 AM
But some one, intelligence, actually designed that meal. The purpose of the illustration was to show you that a combination of randomness and non-randomness is involved, so it's not all one or all the other.


True, but it still all random.Except for the selection part. Selection is actually happening, and selection is the direct opposite of random.


The mutations that create novelty, and the environment they happen to find themselves. If natural selection is the the thing that removes randomness as AronRa suggested then that depends on the environment the creature happens to find itself in -and that too is chance.But selection is still happening, and selection is the opposite of chance.


Then kick it back one step and ask did we have to have these kind of environments in the first place or any life supporting Eco-systems? That too was chance - it is chance all the way down.Except for selection, which is the opposite of chance.


No, I did not design my meal - but another intelligence did.What happened was selection. Until you can admit that selection is involved, it's a waste of time to dig into the nature of selection, how it works.

klaus54
08-07-2014, 05:13 AM
You do not "see" a third option because none exists. What 'these' people do is use hand-waving, smoke and mirrors, ad hoc definitions and Plutonian logic to conjure-up third and fourth and fifth choices.

The plain fact of the matter is that there are two -- count them, TWO (2) -- options: the universe and all therein (including life) is either the result of purely natural, unguided processes (including elements of 'randomness') or it is the result of purposeful, directed design. Period, end of story, go home.

Jorge

How do define "design"? It implies a designer.

Order (non-randomness) can be achieved in a dissipative system.

If you believe that ordering requires an outside "orderer", please demonstrate what or who that is.

Learn your physics, son.

K54

P.S. In the context of biological evolution (REGARDLESS of how life began), natural selection to changing environmental conditions working on genetic diversity is the "orderer". And since Earth is thermodynamically open, this violates no physics.

seer
08-07-2014, 06:11 AM
The purpose of the illustration was to show you that a combination of randomness and non-randomness is involved, so it's not all one or all the other.

Except for the selection part. Selection is actually happening, and selection is the direct opposite of random.

But why certain mutations take or don't take is random because of the environment they by chance find themselves in. And the environment that drives natural selection is to there by chance so:

1. Mutations are random.

2. The creature is in a particular ecological niche by chance.

3. The ecological niche itself that drives selection is also there by chance.

Chance is behind the whole system.

Sparko
08-07-2014, 06:13 AM
Then how's come you CAN'T regale us with the unambiguous, plain, direct, simple-even-to-a-child, straightforward "reading" of the first Genesis story?

The TWeb World awaits...

K54

OK so maybe you aren't a troll. Just a jackass jerk. I apologize.

seer
08-07-2014, 06:20 AM
OK so maybe you aren't a troll. Just a jackass jerk. I apologize.

You are being too kind...

HMS_Beagle
08-07-2014, 06:39 AM
But why certain mutations take or don't take is random because of the environment they by chance find themselves in. And the environment that drives natural selection is to there by chance so:

1. Mutations are random.

2. The creature is in a particular ecological niche by chance.

3. The ecological niche itself that drives selection is also there by chance.

Chance is behind the whole system.

When playing roulette against the casino the number that turns up is random yet over time the house manages to win 5% without fail. Why is that?

seer
08-07-2014, 07:05 AM
When playing roulette against the casino the number that turns up is random yet over time the house manages to win 5% without fail. Why is that?

Because the game is intelligently designed that way? In any case which one of my three points do you take exception with?

HMS_Beagle
08-07-2014, 07:21 AM
Because the game is intelligently designed that way? In any case which one of my three points do you take exception with?

The words random and chance most often are used to mean a uniform probability distribution, where each outcome is equally likely.

Natural selection acting on different variations doesn't have a uniform probability distribution. Some variations will outperform others and become more numerous in the population.

The proper term is that the selection part of evolution is stochastic - meaning each event is unpredictable - but long term trends will always follow the nonuniform probability distribution.

That's why you may beat the house on any given roulette spin, but since the numbers 0 and 00 give the house a 5% advantage the house will always win in the long run.

seer
08-07-2014, 07:31 AM
The words random and chance most often are used to mean a uniform probability distribution, where each outcome is equally likely.

Natural selection acting on different variations doesn't have a uniform probability distribution. Some variations will outperform others and become more numerous in the population.

The proper term is that the selection part of evolution is stochastic - meaning each event is unpredictable - but long term trends will always follow the nonuniform probability distribution.

That's why you may beat the house on any given roulette spin, but since the numbers 0 and 00 give the house a 5% advantage the house will always win in the long run.

But it is still all chance, again which one of my three points do you disagree with?

HMS_Beagle
08-07-2014, 07:33 AM
But it is still all chance, again which one of my three points do you disagree with?

I disagree with Creationists playing silly semantic games to avoid dealing with empirically observed reality.

firstfloor
08-07-2014, 08:05 AM
Provided you are wearing a crash helmet of some kind I can recommend HeadlyvonNoggin (Jeremy Christian) speaking to David Smalley about why the Genesis account is scientifically accurate and there is no conflict between religion and science at about 96 minutes and on:
http://www.spreaker.com/user/smalleyandhyso/138-god-v-science-christian-listener

Roy
08-07-2014, 09:11 AM
But it is still all chance, again which one of my three points do you disagree with?The fourth one which you omitted: the result of having a particular mutation in a particular environmental niche is not random.

Roy

seer
08-07-2014, 09:19 AM
The fourth one which you omitted: the result of having a particular mutation in a particular environmental niche is not random.

Roy

What? That doesn't follow. The mutation is random, environmental niche is random, and the creature is in that niche by chance. How can the result also not be random since it did not have to turn out a particular way given the other three variables?

seer
08-07-2014, 09:20 AM
I disagree with Creationists playing silly semantic games to avoid dealing with empirically observed reality.

So I take it that you agree with my three points.

seer
08-07-2014, 09:37 AM
From a Berkeley site on natural selection, the first two points:


1. There is variation in traits.

For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

2.There is differential reproduction.

Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

So the mutation that cause the differing beetle colors are random. And the fact that the beetles find themselves in a niche where the birds eat beetles, or where the birds prefer the green beetles, is also a chance event. So yes the brown beetle would then tend to survive and reproduce better at that point but the selection based on the actions of the birds in that specific environment and the environment itself were chance events.

HMS_Beagle
08-07-2014, 09:57 AM
So I take it that you agree with my three points.

You take it wrong.

Why are you writing such chance sentences with chance words?

Obviously your home could randomly lose power and crash your computer, or your Internet ISP could randomly suffer an outage, or the TWEB server could randomly be smashed my a big meteorite.

That means everything you post here is just chance, don't you agree?

Roy
08-07-2014, 09:59 AM
What? That doesn't follow. The mutation is random, environmental niche is random, and the creature is in that niche by chance. How can the result also not be random since it did not have to turn out a particular way given the other three variables?Oh yeah, forgot I was dealing with an idiot.

Poker hands are random, but the result of possessing a full house when your competitor has a flush is not.

Similarly, mutations may be random, but the result of possessing a particular mutation in a particular environment is not.

I've no doubt that as usual you'll try to twist this into something that fits your preconceived but incorrect propaganda point - or if you can't, simply claim I stated something entirely different. The only suspense is in waiting to see how.

This time try to remember that what you've previously written is immediately available for re-examination.

Roy

rogue06
08-07-2014, 10:00 AM
The words random and chance most often are used to mean a uniform probability distribution, where each outcome is equally likely.

Natural selection acting on different variations doesn't have a uniform probability distribution. Some variations will outperform others and become more numerous in the population.

The proper term is that the selection part of evolution is stochastic - meaning each event is unpredictable - but long term trends will always follow the nonuniform probability distribution.

That's why you may beat the house on any given roulette spin, but since the numbers 0 and 00 give the house a 5% advantage the house will always win in the long run.
Kenneth Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller), in his book "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul," describes randomness as used here thusly:

We might begin by asking what is really meant by "random." One might say "anything can happen" in a random event, but that is not really true. For example, most people would quickly agree that the winner of tonight's state lottery drawing will be picked "at random," but that's not the same thing as saying that anyone can win. I know for certain, for example, that I'm not going to win—because I haven't bought a ticket. The winner may be drawn "randomly," but in this case that means picked from a well-defined population (the ticket holders) and not from all possible individuals who might be happy to receive a prize. So, if we can indeed apply the word “random” to a lottery pick, it means that we can surely use it to refer to an unpredictable outcome chosen from a limited number of possibilities.

In a lottery drawing the forces that constrain those possibilities are obvious. The randomly picked lottery winner is limited to the set of individuals who hold tickets. In evolution, the constraints may be less obvious, but they are still there. Although we often speak of mutations, changes in the genetic material, as being "random," that does not mean that all conceivable changes are equally possible or equally likely. The range of genetic changes is limited by the chemistry of DNA itself, by existing interactions within the cell and by preexisting constraints in the process of development. They are also quickly subjected to the forces of natural selection, which are most definitely nonrandom. In an organism that depends upon camouflage color or streamlined shape for survival changes that interfere with either would soon disappear. Changes that enhanced either would tend to persist and become more common. Natural selection tends to drive evolution in the directions it favors, and as such is far from a random process.

Like tonight's lottery pick, it would be more accurate therefore to describe the nature of genetic change as "unpredictable" instead of "random." We may expect that natural selection will favor the evolution of protective coloration in a certain species that is prey for a larger one and still not be able to predict what form that camouflage will ultimately take.

Roy
08-07-2014, 10:17 AM
So I take it that you agree with my three points.You take it wrong.That succinctly sums up seer's entire modus operandi..

He produces some ridiculous claim that demonstrates only that he's ignorant of the immediate subject, waits for some-one to respond tangentially, then simply assumes that because that some-one didn't directly dismiss his inanity, they must not only agree with whatever nonsense he's currently pushing but must also have made any argument that he chooses to refute.

Roy

seer
08-07-2014, 11:33 AM
Oh yeah, forgot I was dealing with an idiot.

But I didn't forget that I was dealing with a major prick.


Similarly, mutations may be random, but the result of possessing a particular mutation in a particular environment is not.

I have no idea what you mean - the mutation is random, the particular environment is random, therefor the result is random since it could have been a different kind of environment with a different result. For instance in my beetle example: If the birds preferred the brown beetles the green beetles would have survived instead of the brown to pass on their genes. That result was based on chance, they just happened to be in an environment where the birds preferred the green beetles.

Roy
08-07-2014, 12:22 PM
I have no idea what you mean...Can't say I'm surprised. Maybe if you hadn't deleted the other example...?
For instance in my beetle example: If the birds preferred the brown beetles the green beetles would have survived instead of the brown to pass on their genes. That result was based on chance, they just happened to be in an environment where the birds preferred the green beetles.Once again, if you had bothered to
(i) read your own references, and
(ii) make some attempt to understand them,
you might have avoided exposing your incompetence.

Nowhere in your example - or, rather, in some-one else's example that you borrowed uncomprehendingly - is it stated that the birds eat more green beetles because of random preference, as opposed to, say, brown beetles being better camouflaged against the background.

I have no idea whether your depiction of the differing survival rates of differently coloured beetles as being due to random preference results from carelessness, subconscious leaning or deliberate misstatement but the end result is the same - you have misrepresented your own sources and asymptotically reduced your credibility, reputation and esteem.

Roy

seer
08-07-2014, 12:37 PM
Nowhere in your example - or, rather, in some-one else's example that you borrowed uncomprehendingly - is it stated that the birds eat more green beetles because of random preference, as opposed to, say, brown beetles being better camouflaged against the background.

But that is just an accident of environment, what if they were in an environment where green beetles were better camouflaged? That is what is random, the environment they find themselves in and the pressure that brings. That is what I mean about what the birds prefer.

HMS_Beagle
08-07-2014, 01:15 PM
But that is just an accident of environment, what if they were in an environment where green beetles were better camouflaged? That is what is random, the environment they find themselves in and the pressure that brings. That is what I mean about what the birds prefer.

Does it make you happy to play these childish word games and equivocate over the definitions of 'chance', 'random', 'accidents'? Do you feel better about yourself afterwards?

Just trying to work out the motivation here.

phank
08-07-2014, 01:27 PM
But why certain mutations take or don't take is random because of the environment they by chance find themselves in. And the environment that drives natural selection is to there by chance so:

1. Mutations are random.

2. The creature is in a particular ecological niche by chance.

3. The ecological niche itself that drives selection is also there by chance.

Chance is behind the whole system.

Selection is not chance.

seer
08-07-2014, 01:28 PM
Does it make you happy to play these childish word games and equivocate over the definitions of 'chance', 'random', 'accidents'? Do you feel better about yourself afterwards?

Just trying to work out the motivation here.

What did I say that is wrong? This was about AronRa's claim that there was more than the two choices of design or chance - that is false, there are only two choices.

seer
08-07-2014, 01:29 PM
Selection is not chance.

Ok, then which one of my three points do you disagree with?

HMS_Beagle
08-07-2014, 01:33 PM
What did I say that is wrong? This was about AronRa's claim that there was more than the two choices of design or chance - that is false, there are only two choices.

Maybe it's an ego thing that's making you play these childish word games. It's too hard to learn the actual theory so you make up nonsense to feel like you're an equal to those who do understand it. Is that it?

Roy
08-07-2014, 01:36 PM
But that is just an accident of environment, what if they were in an environment where green beetles were better camouflaged?Excellent question. What's the answer?

Roy

HMS_Beagle
08-07-2014, 01:37 PM
What did I say that is wrong? This was about AronRa's claim that there was more than the two choices of design or chance - that is false, there are only two choices.

Your claim is a false dichotomy. There are processes that are a combination of a random part and a non-random part. Evolution is such a process.

klaus54
08-07-2014, 02:06 PM
OK so maybe you aren't a troll. Just a jackass jerk. I apologize.

Apology accepted, but your opinion of me is irrelevant to issues I'm pressing to You-Know-Who.

Apparently you don't understand my question to Jorge and other YECs. I don't see why you don't understand, since what I'm asking for is quite transparent.

Jorge is a Fundy Presuppositionalist who won't listen to anything scientific or exegetical that contradicts his cock-sure 100% correct Bible reading. I'm challenging him on exactly what that reading is!!!!

This is critical since he claims to be a Biblical "Scientific" Creationist. If he can't map Genesis 1 to reality, in a like manner that the natural sciences have done consiliently via methodological naturalism, then all he and other YEC BSCs are making a mockery of truth.

And he won't even consider that maybe his Biblical origins views are not correct, in which case he is distorting Scripture.

Apparently the notion of scientific consilience is a scary thing.

It shouldn't be.

K54

klaus54
08-07-2014, 02:14 PM
Ok, then which one of my three points do you disagree with?

Brownian Motion is pretty random.

Are the laws of thermodynamics random? The 2LoT involves probabilities.

Is Plate Tectonics random?

Is climate change random?

Is the selection by phenotype by changing environmental conditions random?

Do "random" and "by chance" mean the same thing to you?

Do you think God ever uses "chance"?

K54

P.S. The bolded comment is pretty darned important theological issue.

phank
08-07-2014, 03:40 PM
P.S. The bolded comment is pretty darned important theological issue.

I'm guessing that once we accept that adaptive feedback processes can include both chance and selected components, we are a bit too far along the path of understanding that reality can be as observed without the necessity or involvement of any gods at all. Much safer, in a comfy anti-intellectual way, to insist that natural processes are entirely chance (despite all the word games involved), chance cannot possibly have blundered into, you know, ME, therefore something "outside nature" MUST be involved, therefore god. Ah, safety! The first step of allowing "design" to be part of a natural process is a step onto the slippery slope down to godlessness.

shunyadragon
08-07-2014, 07:04 PM
I have no idea what you mean - the mutation is random, the particular environment is random, therefor the result is random since it could have been a different kind of environment with a different result. For instance in my beetle example: If the birds preferred the brown beetles the green beetles would have survived instead of the brown to pass on their genes. That result was based on chance, they just happened to be in an environment where the birds preferred the green beetles.

Again, and again, and again your misusing the word chance. The cause and effect relationship in evolution is not due to 'chance.'

klaus54
08-07-2014, 08:10 PM
I'm guessing that once we accept that adaptive feedback processes can include both chance and selected components, we are a bit too far along the path of understanding that reality can be as observed without the necessity or involvement of any gods at all. Much safer, in a comfy anti-intellectual way, to insist that natural processes are entirely chance (despite all the word games involved), chance cannot possibly have blundered into, you know, ME, therefore something "outside nature" MUST be involved, therefore god. Ah, safety! The first step of allowing "design" to be part of a natural process is a step onto the slippery slope down to godlessness.

Unless, e.g., the supernatural is a superset of nature. The theology is necessarily more complicated than the kindergarten Sunday school version of many conservative evangelicals.

What I was trying to get at with seer is that apparently worked through randomness in the choice of apostle to replace Judas Iscariot. Also the Urim and Thummin in OT tradition.

And the general context was to get seer to distinguish between "chance" and "randomness" and note there are non-random distributions (due to natural selection) acting on the quasi-randomness of mutation and randomness of genetic drift.

K54

seer
08-08-2014, 04:32 AM
Excellent question. What's the answer?

Roy

If the beetles just happen to be in a environment where the where green beetles were better camouflaged, the birds would have eaten more of the brown beetles. The luck of the draw, the outcome could have been completely different in a different niche.

seer
08-08-2014, 04:34 AM
Your claim is a false dichotomy. There are processes that are a combination of a random part and a non-random part. Evolution is such a process.

What niche that a creature finds itself in, that does the selection, is completely random. Different niche, different results. So it is all random.

seer
08-08-2014, 04:56 AM
Again, and again, and again your misusing the word chance. The cause and effect relationship in evolution is not due to 'chance.'

Really Shuny? Did we have to develop the way we did? Did biological life have to exist on this planet?

Roy
08-08-2014, 05:31 AM
But that is just an accident of environment, what if they were in an environment where green beetles were better camouflaged?Excellent question. What's the answer?If the beetles just happen to be in a environment where the where green beetles were better camouflaged, the birds would have eaten more of the brown beetles.So the result of possessing a particular mutation in a particular environment is consistent? It's not random?

Roy

seer
08-08-2014, 05:36 AM
So the result of possessing a particular mutation in a particular environment (aka natural selection) is not random.

Roy

Do you agree that the specific environment a creature finds itself in is because of random events? That like our beetles, if it found itself in a different niche we would/could have had a different outcome? In other words all outcomes are random.

firstfloor
08-08-2014, 05:37 AM
Really Shuny? Did we have to develop the way we did? Did biological life have to exist on this planet?Does this help?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml
It says this:

“Misconception: “Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance.’ ”
“Response: Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
For example, some aquatic animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can move quickly through water. Speed helps them to capture prey and escape danger. Animals such as sharks, tuna, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have evolved streamlined body shapes that allow them to swim fast. As they evolved, individuals with more streamlined bodies were more likely to survive and reproduce. Individuals that survive and reproduce better in their environment will have more offspring (displaying the same traits) in the next generation. That's non-random selection. To say that evolution happens “by chance” ignores half of the picture.”

It does naturally exactly what a breeder would do with domestic animals - and that is not random, is it?

This is good (contains a little swearing):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_CzP7ACXEk

HMS_Beagle
08-08-2014, 06:26 AM
What niche that a creature finds itself in, that does the selection, is completely random. Different niche, different results. So it is all random.

Just like when a casino always wins 5% on roulette over the long run is "all random", right? :lol:

Any more childish word games you wish to play?

HMS_Beagle
08-08-2014, 06:28 AM
Do you agree that the specific environment a creature finds itself in is because of random events? That like our beetles, if it found itself in a different niche we would/could have had a different outcome? In other words all outcomes are random.

Since you're so heavily into word games please give us your definition of random as you are using the term.

seer
08-08-2014, 06:35 AM
Since you're so heavily into word games please give us your definition of random as you are using the term.

Random: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, by chance, without being chosen intentionally, chosen by chance rather than according to a plan.

So you agree that the outcomes would be random - correct?

HMS_Beagle
08-08-2014, 06:45 AM
Random: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, by chance, without being chosen intentionally, chosen by chance rather than according to a plan.

So you agree that the outcomes would be random - correct?

No. The outcomes are stochastic, not random with a uniform probability distribution.

When a rock breaks off the top of a hill is the direction it falls random? Or does the many paths it may take always go towards the bottom of the hill?

When you play draw poker are your final cards totally random? Or did they get there by a random component and a non-random component?

Roy
08-08-2014, 07:04 AM
Do you agree that the specific environment a creature finds itself in is because of random events? That like our beetles, if it found itself in a different niche we would/could have had a different outcome? In other words all outcomes are random.No, I do not agree that all outcomes are random.

Do you agree that the result of possessing a particular mutation in a particular environment is consistent? That it's not random?

Roy

seer
08-08-2014, 07:11 AM
No. The outcomes are stochastic, not random with a uniform probability distribution.

No by the definitions I quoted they certainly are random.


When a rock breaks off the top of a hill is the direction it falls random? Or does the many paths it may take always go towards the bottom of the hill?

So you say there are definite outcomes when it comes to evolution? We had to turn out this way like the rock had to reach the bottom of the hill?

seer
08-08-2014, 07:21 AM
No, I do not agree that all outcomes are random.

How can you disagree? There would have been different outcomes for the beetles depending niche they happen find themselves in.


Do you agree that the result of possessing a particular mutation in a particular environment is consistent? That it's not random?

Roy

What I have been arguing is that outcomes are random, depending on the environment a creature just happens to find themselves in. So yes, the green beetles would have survived better if they were better camouflaged than the brown beetle. But they are in that niche by chance, so the outcome is random. They could just as well been in an environment where the brown beetle was better camouflaged, or where the birds just did not eat either set of beetles.

klaus54
08-08-2014, 07:26 AM
Seer,

1) So what occurrences are NOT by "chance"? (Whatever you mean by "chance".)

2) Are you familiar with the notion of a probability distribution?

You likely have me on "ignore" but someone else might relay the questions.

K54

seer
08-08-2014, 07:29 AM
S
2) Are you familiar with the notion of a probability distribution?

Let me ask you - did we have to turn out the way we did? Or survive as a species at all?

HMS_Beagle
08-08-2014, 07:37 AM
How can you disagree? There would have been different outcomes for the beetles depending niche they happen find themselves in.

What I have been arguing is that outcomes are random, depending on the environment a creature just happens to find themselves in. So yes, the green beetles would have survived better if they were better camouflaged than the brown beetle. But they are in that niche by chance, so the outcome is random. They could just as well been in an environment where the brown beetle was better camouflaged, or where the birds just did not eat either set of beetles.

I admit I can't tell if you're just trolling are really are this mentally slow. Yes the environment you find yourself in may be thought of as random but once in that environment all outcomes are not equally likely. If you're a creature that swims in water evolutionary forces will tend to drive you to having a streamlined shape. That's why ichthyosaurs, dolphins, and sharks are so similar externally.

Evolution has a random part and a non-random part, just like draw poker. You keep pointing to only the random parts and going "see, it's ALL random!!". :ahem:

klaus54
08-08-2014, 07:37 AM
Random: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, by chance, without being chosen intentionally, chosen by chance rather than according to a plan.

So you agree that the outcomes would be random - correct?

The random variable (not the best term that statisticians use - it's really a function) is probability of reproductive fitness, F. The sample space consists of individuals in a population with slightly differing genetics, {I | I is the genetic make up of a member of the population}.

I is chosen "at random" (there are other factors such as sampling -- not all the reproductively fit members will reproduce -- think of fertile but celibate or very ugly people.)

F(I) is the probability that individual will reproduce. This is determined by a probability distribution (determined by the environment -- natural selection). This distribution is NOT uniform.

K54

P.S. By YOUR definition, YOU'RE a chance event. Dig it?

HMS_Beagle
08-08-2014, 07:38 AM
Let me ask you - did we have to turn out the way we did? Or survive as a species at all?

So the answer is no, you're not familiar with the concept of probability distributions.

klaus54
08-08-2014, 07:52 AM
I admit I can't tell if you're just trolling are really are this mentally slow. Yes the environment you find yourself in may be thought of as random but once in that environment all outcomes are not equally likely. If you're a creature that swims in water evolutionary forces will tend to drive you to having a streamlined shape. That's why ichthyosaurs, dolphins, and sharks are so similar externally.

Evolution has a random part and a non-random part, just like draw poker. You keep pointing to only the random parts and going "see, it's ALL random!!". :ahem:

Perhaps seer is thinking that evolution is not teleological, i.e., it has no "goal". It's the concept that if evolution were started again it's likely a different biosphere would result.

But the same thing could be said about him. His mommy just had the right egg, and his daddy had just the right sperm. Otherwise seer wouldn't be seer.

I wonder if he realizes that?

God was able to work with him in any case.

K54

seer
08-08-2014, 08:05 AM
I admit I can't tell if you're just trolling are really are this mentally slow. Yes the environment you find yourself in may be thought of as random but once in that environment all outcomes are not equally likely. If you're a creature that swims in water evolutionary forces will tend to drive you to having a streamlined shape. That's why ichthyosaurs, dolphins, and sharks are so similar externally.

I did not say that all outcomes are equally likely in a specific environment. Like in our beetle example. I'm saying that the environment one finds themselves in, is in that environment by chance. That is a chance event - and that chance event (the environment we happen to find ourselves in) then drives the outcome.

seer
08-08-2014, 08:06 AM
Perhaps seer is thinking that evolution is not teleological, i.e., it has no "goal". It's the concept that if evolution were started again it's likely a different biosphere would result.

Exactly.

seer
08-08-2014, 08:09 AM
So the answer is no, you're not familiar with the concept of probability distributions.

So why did we turn out this way? There was a chance that we would and a chance that we wouldn't. What else accounts for the way we developed besides chance?

HMS_Beagle
08-08-2014, 08:43 AM
So why did we turn out this way? There was a chance that we would and a chance that we wouldn't. What else accounts for the way we developed besides chance?

That's a long way from your opening claims


I don't get it, this guy said there are not only two choices - randomness or design. He does agree that mutations are random, and since mutations create the novelty for selection to save I don't see how this is anything but random. So I don't see what this third option is.

You've pretty much moved your goalposts across the continent. :ahem:

Roy
08-08-2014, 09:08 AM
How can you disagree? There would have been different outcomes for the beetles depending niche they happen find themselves in.I can disagree because the outcome of having a particular mutation in a particular environment is not random - a point which you have repeatedly refused to address.
What I have been arguing is that outcomes are random, depending on the environment a creature just happens to find themselves in. So yes, the green beetles would have survived better if they were better camouflaged than the brown beetle.Which is not random.
But they are in that niche by chance, so the outcome is random.No. Even if they are in that niche by chance, then the outcome of them being in that niche is still not random, so the overall outcome is at best partially random. Do you think you can get that through your randomly thick skull?
They could just as well been in an environment where the brown beetle was better camouflaged, or where the birds just did not eat either set of beetles.You have this strange idea that where a species exists is random - as though we should be seeing groups of sharks appearing up mountains, or herds of elephants on remote islands. In this world, that doesn't happen. Species are generally found in the environments where their ancestors were found, and environments do not change that rapidly.

One last thing. That definition of "random" you claim you quoted? You didn't quote it at all. You built it yourself by taking isolated sections from actual definitions, deleting the pieces that didn't fit your requirements. For example, the first part of your "definition" is from this:
_____proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern
but you dishonestly deleted the bit about patterns. So even if evolution/natural selection were random according to your definition - which it isn't - it still wouldn't be random according to every one else's definition.

Roy

Jorge
08-08-2014, 09:22 AM
Kenneth Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller), in his book "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul," describes randomness as used here thusly:

We might begin by asking what is really meant by "random." One might say "anything can happen" in a random event, but that is not really true. For example, most people would quickly agree that the winner of tonight's state lottery drawing will be picked "at random," but that's not the same thing as saying that anyone can win. I know for certain, for example, that I'm not going to win—because I haven't bought a ticket. The winner may be drawn "randomly," but in this case that means picked from a well-defined population (the ticket holders) and not from all possible individuals who might be happy to receive a prize. So, if we can indeed apply the word “random” to a lottery pick, it means that we can surely use it to refer to an unpredictable outcome chosen from a limited number of possibilities.

In a lottery drawing the forces that constrain those possibilities are obvious. The randomly picked lottery winner is limited to the set of individuals who hold tickets. In evolution, the constraints may be less obvious, but they are still there. Although we often speak of mutations, changes in the genetic material, as being "random," that does not mean that all conceivable changes are equally possible or equally likely. The range of genetic changes is limited by the chemistry of DNA itself, by existing interactions within the cell and by preexisting constraints in the process of development. They are also quickly subjected to the forces of natural selection, which are most definitely nonrandom. In an organism that depends upon camouflage color or streamlined shape for survival changes that interfere with either would soon disappear. Changes that enhanced either would tend to persist and become more common. Natural selection tends to drive evolution in the directions it favors, and as such is far from a random process.

Like tonight's lottery pick, it would be more accurate therefore to describe the nature of genetic change as "unpredictable" instead of "random." We may expect that natural selection will favor the evolution of protective coloration in a certain species that is prey for a larger one and still not be able to predict what form that camouflage will ultimately take.

Just finished reading Miller's immeasurably horrid explanation on the meaning of "random". Miller should stick to the 'specialty' that he is good at - promoting the lies of Evolution - instead of trying to speak on matters that he sucks at - basically everything else outside of that 'specialty'.

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
08-08-2014, 09:25 AM
Just finished reading Miller's immeasurably horrid explanation on the meaning of "random". Miller should stick to the 'specialty' that he is good at - promoting the lies of Evolution - instead of trying to speak on matters that he sucks at - basically everything else outside of that 'specialty'.

Jorge

Feel free to provide your definition of 'random'. We could use the laugh. You're quite experienced at making up your own idiotic definitions. :lol:

JonF
08-08-2014, 09:26 AM
But why certain mutations take or don't take is random because of the environment they by chance find themselves in. And the environment that drives natural selection is to there by chance so:

1. Mutations are random.

2. The creature is in a particular ecological niche by chance.

3. The ecological niche itself that drives selection is also there by chance.

Chance is behind the whole system.
It won't do any good, but I'll still point out that seer made a critical omission:

4. The interaction between the organism and the ecological niche is not random.

phank
08-08-2014, 10:07 AM
I admit I can't tell if you're just trolling are really are this mentally slow. False dichtomy. It's possible that seer is neither trolling nor slow, but is theologically prohibited from even LOOKING at selection. Morton's demon seems to be working overtime here.

seer
08-08-2014, 10:08 AM
4. The interaction between the organism and the ecological niche is not random.

The outcome is random, look at the example with the beetles I posted. You could have two different outcomes depending on the conditions in the niche.

JonF
08-08-2014, 10:15 AM
Yup. But not random, because of #4. Or are you claiming that the interaction between the organism and environment is random?

seer
08-08-2014, 10:26 AM
Even if they are in that niche by chance, then the outcome of them being in that niche is still not random, so the overall outcome is at best partially random.

Ok, so now it could be partially random? You agree that the beetle outcome will be different depending on the condition in niche? So the beetle finds itself in an environment by chance. The niche has particular selective forces like a condition where green beetles are better camouflaged - and that condition came by chance. And the birds that just happen to have a taste for beetles. Chance, chance, chance.

And I will ask again, did man have to develop the way he did?




One last thing. That definition of "random" you claim you quoted? You didn't quote it at all. You built it yourself by taking isolated sections from actual definitions, deleting the pieces that didn't fit your requirements. For example, the first part of your "definition" is from this:
_____proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern

but you dishonestly deleted the bit about patterns. So even if evolution/natural selection were random according to your definition - which it isn't - it still wouldn't be random according to every one else's definition.

I was asked what "I" meant by random.

seer
08-08-2014, 10:30 AM
Yup. But not random, because of #4. Or are you claiming that the interaction between the organism and environment is random?

I'm saying that the outcome is random because it is by chance that the creature finds itself in a particular niche, with particular selective forces. If it found itself in a different niche with different selective forces the outcome would be different. Again, like our beetle example.

Roy
08-08-2014, 11:33 AM
Ok, so now it could be partially random?And partially non-random. Which you have ignored. Again.

Roy

JonF
08-08-2014, 11:45 AM
I'm saying that the outcome is random because it is by chance that the creature finds itself in a particular niche, with particular selective forces. If it found itself in a different niche with different selective forces the outcome would be different. Again, like our beetle example

Last response, since you are just repeating your claims without addressing my original point. The interaction between the selective forces and the organism is not random.

seer
08-08-2014, 11:52 AM
And partially non-random. Which you have ignored. Again.

Roy

But you do agree that outcomes are random depending on the niche the organism happens to find itself in?

seer
08-08-2014, 12:21 PM
Last response, since you are just repeating your claims without addressing my original point. The interaction between the selective forces and the organism is not random.

And wouldn't the outcomes shaped by the selective forces be different depending on the random mutations that these forces had to work with? And I will ask again, did we have to evolved as we did? Are we not, in the end, just lucky to happen to find ourselves in various niches over time that formed us the way they did?

Roy
08-08-2014, 12:24 PM
And partially non-random. Which you have ignored. Again.But you do agree that outcomes are random depending on the niche the organism happens to find itself in?No. They are partially non-random. Which you have ignored. Again.

Roy

seer
08-08-2014, 12:43 PM
No. They are partially non-random. Which you have ignored. Again.

Roy

Don't the outcomes depend niche they find themselves in? That different niches would cause different results, like with our beetles?

Roy
08-08-2014, 12:50 PM
Don't the outcomes depend niche they find themselves in? That different niches would cause different results, like with our beetles?Yes, but they also depend on the non-random effects of natural selection within that niche. Which you have ignored. Again.

Roy

seer
08-08-2014, 01:07 PM
Yes, but they also depend on the non-random effects of natural selection within that niche. Which you have ignored. Again.

Roy

But the effects would be random because the niches themselves have differing selective forces. In one niche the brown beetle survives, and a slightly different niche the green beetle survives. So we have random outcomes. I just do see where chance is taken out of the picture.

klaus54
08-08-2014, 01:36 PM
Just finished reading Miller's immeasurably horrid explanation on the meaning of "random". Miller should stick to the 'specialty' that he is good at - promoting the lies of Evolution - instead of trying to speak on matters that he sucks at - basically everything else outside of that 'specialty'.

Jorge

Nothing like a deep analysis and instructive critique.

K54

Roy
08-08-2014, 02:17 PM
But the effects would be random because the niches themselves have differing selective forces.No, they would be at least partially non-random because of the non-random effects of natural selection within the niches. Which you have ignored. Again.

Roy

klaus54
08-08-2014, 02:35 PM
But the effects would be random because the niches themselves have differing selective forces. In one niche the brown beetle survives, and a slightly different niche the green beetle survives. So we have random outcomes. I just do see where chance is taken out of the picture.

How does creationism take "chance out of the picture"??

Once a genetic system exists, and there are changing environments, then niches change, and organisms adapt or go extinct. And if they do adapt, natural selection will generate a different percentage of various alleles (Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium).

This happens whether or not primitive (or even complex!) organisms were specially created.

Earth's conditions will change by mantle convection, meteor impacts, amount of O2 in the oceans and atmosphere, climate change due to Milankovic cycles or eccentricity of Earth's orbit or volcanic activity...

I don't get your point. As a creationist, do you believe the everything life form and mountain range and ocean and lake was planned in advance??

K54

klaus54
08-08-2014, 02:36 PM
How does creationism take "chance out of the picture"??

Once a genetic system exists, and there are changing environments, then niches change, and organisms adapt or go extinct. And if they do adapt, natural selection will generate a different percentage of various alleles (Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium).

This happens whether or not primitive (or even complex!) organisms were specially created.

Earth's conditions will change by mantle convection, meteor impacts, amount of O2 in the oceans and atmosphere, climate change due to Milankovic cycles or eccentricity of Earth's orbit or volcanic activity...

I don't get your point. As a creationist, do you believe the everything life form and mountain range and ocean and lake was planned in advance??

K54

P.S. And about the creation of YOU by an egg on a particular month and one of billions of sperm?

phank
08-08-2014, 02:37 PM
I guess since seer's life is largely composed of unpredictable events beyond his control, there are no non-random facets to anything he does.

I still say it's Morton's Demon. Letting any aspect of nature be non-random undermines seer's god.

Roy
08-08-2014, 03:01 PM
I don't get your point. As a creationist, do you believe the everything life form and mountain range and ocean and lake was planned in advance??He hasn't got a point. He's just wants some-one to agree that evolution is completely random so that he can pretend it wouldn't have produced us. Or at least not disagree, which he takes to be the same thing.

Roy

shunyadragon
08-08-2014, 03:30 PM
No by the definitions I quoted they certainly are random.



So you say there are definite outcomes when it comes to evolution? We had to turn out this way like the rock had to reach the bottom of the hill?

For years you have consistently misused layman concepts of random and chance and try to shoe horn them into science to justify a religious agenda against science. The following is not the best definition of 'randomness' from the scientific perspective, but it is a start to maybe clear this up so we can go forward. I will look for better definitions to post.



Randomness means lack of pattern or predictability in events.[1] Randomness suggests a non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.

Applied usage in science, mathematics and statistics recognizes a lack of predictability when referring to randomness, but admits regularities in the occurrences of events whose outcomes are not certain. For example, when throwing two dice and counting the total, we can say that a sum of 7 will randomly occur twice as often as 4. This view, where randomness simply refers to situations where the certainty of the outcome is at issue, applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy. In these situations, randomness implies a measure of uncertainty, and notions of haphazardness are irrelevant.

The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness. In statistics, a random variable is an assignment of a numerical value to each possible outcome of an event space. This association facilitates the identification and the calculation of probabilities of the events. A random process is a sequence of random variables describing a process whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions. These and other constructs are extremely useful in probability theory.

Actually all the events of our macro physical universe have been found not to be truly random, but follow a fractal pattern based on Chaos math. All events occur within the constraints of Natural Law, the nature of the materials, and the environment. This only allows a limited range of results.

jordanriver
08-09-2014, 12:39 AM
Brownian Motion is pretty random.

Are the laws of thermodynamics random? The 2LoT involves probabilities.

Is Plate Tectonics random?

Is climate change random?

Is the selection by phenotype by changing environmental conditions random?

Do "random" and "by chance" mean the same thing to you?

Do you think God ever uses "chance"?

K54

P.S. The bolded comment is pretty darned important theological issue.

Yes. I do.

I don't know about lucky rare 'chance' mutations, especially when its critical to hurry up and find a survivor, (like antibiotics killing you and your fellow bacteria off to extinction).

But there is such a thing as stress induced mutagenesis.
In the lab, humans can 'cause' a mutagen, radiating for example. But that of course does not mean the mutations that result are not *each* individually random. BUT, the rate of mutation increases, sometimes a million fold.

The question is, (and I don't think this is another God of the Gaps reach), how do genomes 'know' its time to start making "mistakes" in a real big hurry. That sounds like a plan to me.

But each "mistake" is still random, but as random as, if say, the leader of a city of a million people is challenged to flip pennies till you get 7 heads in a row. And you got till sunrise to get it done. That would be kind of hard to do, but if he can connect with all his citizens to start flippin them pennies like crazy, there is a good chance of a stochastic (I just learned that word today I think) result, to save the city.

so its random, but not really random at the same time.

jordanriver
08-09-2014, 12:55 AM
A universal common ancestor is most certainly testable. Every genome we sequence, every sample from anywhere we culture, gives us the opportunity to determine if there is a species that falls outside the known range of variation. (i.e., uses some fundamentally different chemistry or mechanism for basic metabolism, replicating DNA, etc.). It's important not to confuse "not yet falsified" with "cannot be falsified."I don't know about that.
For example, "gammaretrovirus-like groups (PtG1 and PtG2) occurred in chimpanzees but not in humans"
ok, not a problem.
But they also appeared in baboons, from the Old World Monkeys group.
Look, if they are in both baboons and chimps, then, the erv should have passed down from the common ancestor of Old World Monkeys and the Apes and Great Apes groups. But it missed us humans.
FALSIFICATION?
nope, just 'proof' of HGT, horizontal gene transfer (AKA LGT, lateral gene transfer)
"...This appears to be an example of horizontal transfer of retroviruses with occasional fixation in the germ line..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1346942/

hmmm, ok. It could happen.

but the point is, how in the heck do you test that?

jordanriver
08-09-2014, 12:58 AM
:teeth:
oh, hiya folks.
I'm back.
I still don't know anything, so I still have to cite other people, and books and letters and such.

Jorge
08-09-2014, 03:59 AM
Nothing like a deep analysis and instructive critique.

K54

Yeah, right, like you would able to handle an honest version of either of those.

Bwahahahahahaha :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

Try again in a couple of years, Santa Klaus.

Jorge

seer
08-09-2014, 06:00 AM
No, they would be at least partially non-random because of the non-random effects of natural selection within the niches. Which you have ignored. Again.

Roy



Again Roy, the effects of natural selection are, in the end, random, because the are dependent on the material they have to work with. Our beetle just happens to experience a mutation(s) that changes it color, that new color just happens to cause it to survive better (the color change could be completely neutral with no effect either way). And it only survives better because of the environment it happens to find itself in.

phank
08-09-2014, 06:09 AM
Again Roy, the effects of natural selection are, in the end, random, because the are dependent on the material they have to work with. Our beetle just happens to experience a mutation(s) that changes it color, that new color just happens to cause it to survive better (the color change could be completely neutral with no effect either way). And it only survives better because of the environment it happens to find itself in.

Let's say you decide to cross the road. So you walk from one side to the other as soon as it's safe. Now, did the road HAVE to be exactly where it was? No, that's random. Did you have to exist at all? No, that's random. So is it pure chance that you happened to cross the road? Or did your decision have anything to do with it? If so, then the event is not ENTIRELY chance - there were both random and designed components involved.

Playing word games to pretend obviously nonrandom factors are "really" random because some OTHER factors are random, is dishonest. As usual.

Roy
08-09-2014, 06:55 AM
Again Roy, the effects of natural selection are, in the end, random, because the are dependent on the material they have to work with.I give up. Have fun in your world where plant leaves are pink, white, indigo, brown, black, purple, grey, orange, crimson, cerulean, ultramarine, puce, magnolia, cobalt blue and transparent because the effect of natural selection on leaf colour is random rather than being biased towards shades of green. Let me know when you meet your own standard for consideration by obtaining a PhD in evolutionary biology.

Roy

seer
08-09-2014, 07:13 AM
I give up. Have fun in your world where plant leaves are pink, white, indigo, brown, black, purple, grey, orange, crimson, cerulean, ultramarine, puce, magnolia, cobalt blue and transparent because the effect of natural selection on leaf colour is random rather than being biased towards shades of green. Let me know when you meet your own standard for consideration by obtaining a PhD in evolutionary biology.

Roy

Roy, doesn't it all come do to the fact that a random mutation just happens to help our beetle survive better because it happens to be in an environment where that makes a difference?

seer
08-09-2014, 07:16 AM
Let's say you decide to cross the road. So you walk from one side to the other as soon as it's safe. Now, did the road HAVE to be exactly where it was? No, that's random. Did you have to exist at all? No, that's random. So is it pure chance that you happened to cross the road? Or did your decision have anything to do with it? If so, then the event is not ENTIRELY chance - there were both random and designed components involved.

Ok so you are pointing to an intelligent decision to make your point? What intelligent decisions do we see in natural selection?

Roy
08-09-2014, 07:35 AM
Ok so you are pointing to an intelligent decision to make your point?No, he said it was you crossing the road.

Roy

P.S. Got that PhD yet?

phank
08-09-2014, 10:02 AM
Ok so you are pointing to an intelligent decision to make your point? What intelligent decisions do we see in natural selection?

I recall that Lizzie Liddle was banned from Dembski's blog for pointing out that according to Dembski's own definition of intelligence, environmental constraints count as intelligence! His definition of intelligence was the capability to make decisions suitable for the conditions to which those decisions applied. That's exactly what the environment does. It is NOT random, it is selection, the very opposite of random.

But I can understand how you can look around, see literally millions of species each wonderfully suited for their environments, and presume Divine Guidance rather than a systematic feedback process that rewards (with survival) those who fit best. Gods require no knowledge, intelligence, or analysis. Actual natural processes are just the opposite - understanding them takes WORK. Adaptive feedback processes operating within a chaotic environment is complicated, you know? Goddidit is simple. A no-brainer, you might say.

Kristian Joensen
08-09-2014, 10:33 AM
What decisions does the environment make? How long does it take to reach those decisions? What criteria does it use to arrive at those decisions?

phank
08-09-2014, 10:52 AM
What decisions does the environment make? How long does it take to reach those decisions? What criteria does it use to arrive at those decisions?

The environment decides which organisms are more likely to survive to reproduce, and which are less likely. This is kindergarten stuff. The decision is made continuously, and the criterion is relative reproductive success.

Is this really THAT hard to grasp?

shunyadragon
08-09-2014, 11:36 AM
Again Roy, the effects of natural selection are, in the end, random, because the are dependent on the material they have to work with.

No seer, the material they have to work with has nothing to do with the layman's view of random nor chance.


Our beetle just happens to experience a mutation(s) that changes it color, that new color just happens to cause it to survive better (the color change could be completely neutral with no effect either way). And it only survives better because of the environment it happens to find itself in.

just happens???? how, ah . . . whatever.

Jorge
08-09-2014, 11:43 AM
The environment decides which organisms are more likely to survive to reproduce, and which are less likely. This is kindergarten stuff. The decision is made continuously, and the criterion is relative reproductive success.

Is this really THAT hard to grasp?

Yeah, it is --- nonsense is always hard to grasp.

(1) The environment "decides" nothing - it merely 'is'.
(2) the "more-likely / less-likely to reproduce" schtick is circular reasoning --- you can always, with 20-20 hindsight, say at the end that organism survived because "it had an advantage".

TO WIT: Why did it survive? Simple, it survived because it succeeded in reproducing! Why did it succeed in reproducing? Simple, it succeeded in reproducing because it survived (and this success was due to X-Y-Z "advantage").

Thus, the "advantage" is determined because it "reproduced" which in turn was determined by its "survival". IOW, an organism cannot survive if it doesn't reproduce and it cannot reproduce if it doesn't survive - that much is simple common sense. The icing is in attributing it all to an "evolutionary advantage" which may be done in an ad hoc fashion with little or no possibility of being falsified (especially for allegedly long-past history). Ergo, you have a classic example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning generating empirically unfalsifiable "science" statements.

If you people weren't so pitiful you'd be laughable.

Jorge

phank
08-09-2014, 12:09 PM
Yeah, it is --- nonsense is always hard to grasp.
(2) the "more-likely / less-likely to reproduce" schtick is circular reasoning --- you can always, with 20-20 hindsight, say at the end that organism survived because "it had an advantage".


And why does the river always follow the easiest path downhill? We could say it's because of gravity. But how do we know it's gravity? Because the river always follows the easiest path downhill!

Gravity doesn't exist, and arguing that it does is circular reasoning. QED.

seer
08-09-2014, 01:40 PM
No, he said it was you crossing the road.

Roy

P.S. Got that PhD yet?

Still a prick...

seer
08-09-2014, 01:48 PM
It is NOT random, it is selection, the very opposite of random.

Nonsense, it is the very definition random. It all boils down to certain random mutation helping a creature survive better, other times the mutation has no real effect, and at other times the mutation has negative effects. Depending on the environment one just happens to be in. All the luck of the draw - nature intends nothing, plans nothing, seeks no specific ends.

shunyadragon
08-09-2014, 05:49 PM
Nonsense, it is the very definition random. It all boils down to certain random mutation helping a creature survive better, other times the mutation has no real effect, and at other times the mutation has negative effects. Depending on the environment one just happens to be in. All the luck of the draw - nature intends nothing, plans nothing, seeks no specific ends.

Nonsense, the definition you give is the layman's definition and not what applies to science.

klaus54
08-09-2014, 09:22 PM
Yes. I do.

I don't know about lucky rare 'chance' mutations, especially when its critical to hurry up and find a survivor, (like antibiotics killing you and your fellow bacteria off to extinction).

But there is such a thing as stress induced mutagenesis.
In the lab, humans can 'cause' a mutagen, radiating for example. But that of course does not mean the mutations that result are not *each* individually random. BUT, the rate of mutation increases, sometimes a million fold.

The question is, (and I don't think this is another God of the Gaps reach), how do genomes 'know' its time to start making "mistakes" in a real big hurry. That sounds like a plan to me.

But each "mistake" is still random, but as random as, if say, the leader of a city of a million people is challenged to flip pennies till you get 7 heads in a row. And you got till sunrise to get it done. That would be kind of hard to do, but if he can connect with all his citizens to start flippin them pennies like crazy, there is a good chance of a stochastic (I just learned that word today I think) result, to save the city.

so its random, but not really random at the same time.

Mutations occur at an relatively constant rate during fairly long time intervals. This rate change globally due to long term atmospheric composition change, solar activity, the position and presence of oceans. Ultraviolet radiation and mutagens are a major cause.

If accumulation of genetic diversity is not quick enough to keep up with environmental changes, then a population is likely to go extinct -- like the vast majority of species that have ever existed.

You make the same naive mistake of expecting nature to have senescence and evolution to possess a teleology. No one who understands science at even the high school would say something so silly.

I don't what's wrong with you anti-evolution guys. Make an effort to understand the theory before you express you incredulity.

So, in what sense can God make use of randomness?

K54

klaus54
08-09-2014, 09:29 PM
Yeah, it is --- nonsense is always hard to grasp.

(1) The environment "decides" nothing - it merely 'is'.
(2) the "more-likely / less-likely to reproduce" schtick is circular reasoning --- you can always, with 20-20 hindsight, say at the end that organism survived because "it had an advantage".

TO WIT: Why did it survive? Simple, it survived because it succeeded in reproducing! Why did it succeed in reproducing? Simple, it succeeded in reproducing because it survived (and this success was due to X-Y-Z "advantage").

Thus, the "advantage" is determined because it "reproduced" which in turn was determined by its "survival". IOW, an organism cannot survive if it doesn't reproduce and it cannot reproduce if it doesn't survive - that much is simple common sense. The icing is in attributing it all to an "evolutionary advantage" which may be done in an ad hoc fashion with little or no possibility of being falsified (especially for allegedly long-past history). Ergo, you have a classic example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning generating empirically unfalsifiable "science" statements.

If you people weren't so pitiful you'd be laughable.

Jorge

Phank fell for the anthropomorphism that KJ used (probably unintentionally) and you jumped on it like a shark on bloody chum.

Nothing in nature "decides" anything. Environments change and organisms that have more suited phenotypes are more likely to survive.

Jorge -- question for you. You accept "microevolution", correct? How do think that occurs?

K54

klaus54
08-09-2014, 09:33 PM
Still a prick...


And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.


:lol:

klaus54
08-09-2014, 09:35 PM
Yeah, right, like you would able to handle an honest version of either of those.

Bwahahahahahaha :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

Try again in a couple of years, Santa Klaus.

Jorge

Y'all could always give it a try once.

:tongue:

K54

klaus54
08-09-2014, 09:44 PM
:teeth:
oh, hiya folks.
I'm back.
I still don't know anything, so I still have to cite other people, and books and letters and such.

:teeth: right back at'cha.

Are you a YEC? There aren't many of them willing to dive into the maelstrom of Nat Sci.

To get you up to speed, could you give your definition of consilience, and how it applies to natural science?

When you answer that, I'd like to ask you for your simple literal unambiguous reading of the first Genesis story that gives a model consistent with the vast body of data: geologic, genetic, astronomical, biogeographical, paleo-anthropological, etc...

Thanks in advance!

K54

jordanriver
08-09-2014, 11:00 PM
:teeth: right back at'cha.

Are you a YEC? There aren't many of them willing to dive into the maelstrom of Nat Sci.

To get you up to speed, could you give your definition of consilience, and how it applies to natural science?

When you answer that, I'd like to ask you for your simple literal unambiguous reading of the first Genesis story that gives a model consistent with the vast body of data: geologic, genetic, astronomical, biogeographical, paleo-anthropological, etc...

Thanks in advance!

K54
why Nat Sci? I wanted to post over at applied protology, but nobody seems to be there.

consilience, 'my' interpretation?
ok, I think it means when you still got a lot of cards left to play.

like, when I might think I gotcha, because of a genomic discrepancy (like the erv in 2 different groups, but not all the members share it, so that argument for common ancestor is gone)...

but then you say, say, not so fast, we still got the morphologists.
but then somebody finds a tetrapod older by millions of years than your fishapod, (no problem, just tack on a few more millions of years and say, 'hmm, I guess the fishapod had to appear a few million years before this new tetrapod discovery',
or if your "gradual descent" hits a snag, like "...2.Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction".
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

reversed direction?? huh what?......, ok, I get it, if the mutagenesis trait is an "I.D." program, of course, if the environment returns to its previous state, then of course the program would have to kick in and bring the population back to its previous state.

but how do you falsify something like "reverses direction occasionally"

besides, you still got more cards to play, like dating the neighborhood, but occasionally you are liable to find pig fossils from a known later date than the tuff your hominid was discovered.

IOW, maybe we Bible believers can find one, maybe even 2 good challenges, but all 3? or 4 or 5.
Not likely.

not likely to find a problem in the biochemistry PLUS the morphology PLUS the dating. Too many cards to falsify anything.


ok, what else, Genesis??

that's not science, that's CATEGORY: HISTORY.

I don't think it is consistent with your theories.

somebody's off, that's for sure.

jordanriver
08-09-2014, 11:23 PM
...........So, in what sense can God make use of randomness?

K54

gee I dunno.
He could have just zapped wings on us during a flood I suppose.

all I can think of, I guess He doesn't want you to know He exists.

....not that I took any actual time to think about it.

seer
08-10-2014, 02:58 AM
Nonsense, the definition you give is the layman's definition and not what applies to science.

Which one is wrong, the random mutation or the chance that in might be helpful?

shunyadragon
08-10-2014, 03:45 AM
Which one is wrong, the random mutation or the chance that in might be helpful?

Both, the use of random and chance here are layman's use of the words, and not related to the science of evolution.

seer
08-10-2014, 04:51 AM
Both, the use of random and chance here are layman's use of the words, and not related to the science of evolution.

It doesn't matter Shuny, random is random, chance is chance I don't care what science calls it. There is no direction in evolution, mutations do not aim for a certain end. So again: Which one is wrong, the random mutation or the chance that in might be helpful?

phank
08-10-2014, 06:23 AM
Phank fell for the anthropomorphism that KJ used (probably unintentionally) and you jumped on it like a shark on bloody chum.

Nothing in nature "decides" anything. Environments change and organisms that have more suited phenotypes are more likely to survive.Only if you use "decide" to necessarily imply a conscious and deliberate consideration of alternatives, followed by a choice. But in a general sense, the environment does select, even if indirectly, and selection is a decision process in an important sense. I'm aware that those determined to misunderstand will misrepresent ANY choice of words or effort to explain or describe.

phank
08-10-2014, 06:27 AM
It doesn't matter Shuny, random is random, chance is chance I don't care what science calls it.If you were concerned with what words MEAN, you wouldn't keep using different implied meanings to run around in circles.


There is no direction in evolution, mutations do not aim for a certain end.You are making category errors here. There is "direction" in the sense of a long-term goal, and evolution has none. But there is also "direction" in the sense of adaptation and increased suitability, which is what evolution does. Kind of like the difference between not caring where the roads lead, and not caring if you stay on the pavement.


So again: Which one is wrong, the random mutation or the chance that in might be helpful?Neither is wrong. Mutations are not correlated with fitness, SELECTION is correlated with fitness.

But as Roy has apparently tired of pointing out, everyone has been shouting SELECTION at you for pages and pages, and continue to pretend you haven't seen it.

Jorge
08-10-2014, 06:46 AM
Phank fell for the anthropomorphism that KJ used (probably unintentionally) and you jumped on it like a shark on bloody chum.

You have no idea how often you people make Freudian slips like that.
Then the dishonesty prohibits you from acknowledging them.


Nothing in nature "decides" anything. Environments change and organisms that have more suited phenotypes are more likely to survive.

Do you actually believe that I'm not aware of that? I mean, really?
If so then your are significantly dumber than I dared even imagine.

That, however, does not prevent many of your ideological compadres from giving 'Nature' and the 'Cosmos' the status of an 'autonomous entity' (be sure to note the uppercase). But why am I wasting my time on the likes of you? :doh:



Jorge -- question for you. You accept "microevolution", correct? How do think that occurs?

K54

Your question is well below sophomoric.

Stop trying to draw me into a discussion. My last post addressed to you very clearly (and kindly) asked you to stay away - did it not? You are not an honest person, Santa Klaus, and this shows in your posts / debating tactics. In this you are still behind the likes of Beagle Boy et al. but you sure are giving him a run for his money.


The "more-likely / less-likely to reproduce" schtick is circular reasoning --- you can always, with 20-20 hindsight, say at the end that organism survived because "it had an advantage".

TO WIT: Why did it survive? Simple, it survived because it succeeded in reproducing! Why did it succeed in reproducing? Simple, it succeeded in reproducing because it survived (and this success was due to X-Y-Z "advantage").

Thus, the "advantage" is determined because it "reproduced" which in turn was determined by its "survival". IOW, an organism cannot survive if it doesn't reproduce and it cannot reproduce if it doesn't survive - that much is simple common sense. The icing is in attributing it all to an "evolutionary advantage" which may be done in an ad hoc fashion with little or no possibility of being falsified (especially for allegedly long-past history). Ergo, you have a classic example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning generating empirically unfalsifiable "science" statements.

If you people weren't so pitiful you'd be laughable.

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
08-10-2014, 07:09 AM
The "more-likely / less-likely to reproduce" schtick is circular reasoning --- you can always, with 20-20 hindsight, say at the end that organism survived because "it had an advantage".

TO WIT: Why did it survive? Simple, it survived because it succeeded in reproducing! Why did it succeed in reproducing? Simple, it succeeded in reproducing because it survived (and this success was due to X-Y-Z "advantage").

Thus, the "advantage" is determined because it "reproduced" which in turn was determined by its "survival". IOW, an organism cannot survive if it doesn't reproduce and it cannot reproduce if it doesn't survive - that much is simple common sense. The icing is in attributing it all to an "evolutionary advantage" which may be done in an ad hoc fashion with little or no possibility of being falsified (especially for allegedly long-past history). Ergo, you have a classic example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning generating empirically unfalsifiable "science" statements.

By Jorge's idiot logic there's no sense holding the Summer Olympics because all the athletes perform the same, i.e.

The "more-likely / less-likely to win the 100m dash foot race" schtick is circular reasoning --- you can always, with 20-20 hindsight, say at the end that winner triumphed because "he had a speed advantage".

TO WIT: Why did he win? Simple, he won because it succeeded in crossing the finish line first! Why did he succeed in crossing the finish line first? Simple, he succeeded because he won the race (and this success was due to speed "advantage").

Thus, the "speed advantage" is determined because he "won the race" which in turn was determined by his "speed". IOW, a runner cannot win if he isn't the fastest and he cannot be the fastest he doesn't win - that much is simple common sense. The icing is in attributing it all to a "speed advantage" which may be done in an ad hoc fashion with little or no possibility of being falsified (especially for allegedly long-past history). Ergo, you have a classic example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning generating empirically unfalsifiable "science" statements.

:lol::lol::lol:

Yes folks, our brain-dead YEC really does reason that way. :ahem:

seer
08-10-2014, 08:10 AM
You are making category errors here. There is "direction" in the sense of a long-term goal, and evolution has none. But there is also "direction" in the sense of adaptation and increased suitability, which is what evolution does. Kind of like the difference between not caring where the roads lead, and not caring if you stay on the pavement.

What are you taking about - not only doesn't evolution care where the roads leads, but doesn't care if we remain on the pavement, hence the extinction of millions of prior species. Like I said, we are the way we are by pure blind luck. We survived thus far by pure chance. Nothing else.



Neither is wrong. Mutations are not correlated with fitness, SELECTION is correlated with fitness.

But as Roy has apparently tired of pointing out, everyone has been shouting SELECTION at you for pages and pages, and continue to pretend you haven't seen it.

Of course I have seen it, so you tell me phank: Which one is wrong, the random mutation or the chance that in might be helpful? Natural Selection is just another way of saying that a random mutation(s) may be helpful in a given circumstance, or it may not or it may be neutral. It is still based on chance and nothing more.

HMS_Beagle
08-10-2014, 08:16 AM
Of course I have seen it, so you tell me phank: Which one is wrong, the random mutation or the chance that in might be helpful? Natural Selection is just another way of saying that a random mutation(s) may be helpful in a given circumstance, or it may not or it may be neutral. It is still based on chance and nothing more.

Poor seer. Just can't understand that a process with chance as a part isn't ALL chance.

Seer, let's play poker.

We each get dealt 5 cards.

You have to keep the 5 cards you're dealt.

I get to discard and redraw up to three times.

Since our final cards are still the result of chance it would be a fair game, right?

shunyadragon
08-10-2014, 09:42 AM
It doesn't matter Shuny, random is random, chance is chance I don't care what science calls it. There is no direction in evolution, mutations do not aim for a certain end. So again: Which one is wrong, the random mutation or the chance that in might be helpful?

Yes seer it does make a difference. Your negative vindictive view of science is showing. I posted the concept of randomness in science, and you did not respond.

rogue06
08-10-2014, 10:31 AM
Kenneth Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller), in his book "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul," describes randomness as used here thusly:

We might begin by asking what is really meant by "random." One might say "anything can happen" in a random event, but that is not really true. For example, most people would quickly agree that the winner of tonight's state lottery drawing will be picked "at random," but that's not the same thing as saying that anyone can win. I know for certain, for example, that I'm not going to win—because I haven't bought a ticket. The winner may be drawn "randomly," but in this case that means picked from a well-defined population (the ticket holders) and not from all possible individuals who might be happy to receive a prize. So, if we can indeed apply the word “random” to a lottery pick, it means that we can surely use it to refer to an unpredictable outcome chosen from a limited number of possibilities.

In a lottery drawing the forces that constrain those possibilities are obvious. The randomly picked lottery winner is limited to the set of individuals who hold tickets. In evolution, the constraints may be less obvious, but they are still there. Although we often speak of mutations, changes in the genetic material, as being "random," that does not mean that all conceivable changes are equally possible or equally likely. The range of genetic changes is limited by the chemistry of DNA itself, by existing interactions within the cell and by preexisting constraints in the process of development. They are also quickly subjected to the forces of natural selection, which are most definitely nonrandom. In an organism that depends upon camouflage color or streamlined shape for survival changes that interfere with either would soon disappear. Changes that enhanced either would tend to persist and become more common. Natural selection tends to drive evolution in the directions it favors, and as such is far from a random process.

Like tonight's lottery pick, it would be more accurate therefore to describe the nature of genetic change as "unpredictable" instead of "random." We may expect that natural selection will favor the evolution of protective coloration in a certain species that is prey for a larger one and still not be able to predict what form that camouflage will ultimately take.
Continuing with this Miller employs another example, meiosis.

We may even know that our own selection of chromosomes was determined in an unpredictable process in the primary sexual organs of our parents. When sperm and egg cells are formed, the twenty-three pairs of human chromosomes unpredictably separate from each other in a process known as meiosis. Although there are rare (and sometimes unfortunate) exceptions to the way in which this process works, generally each reproductive cell will get a single representative of each pair of parental chromosomes. What is truly unpredictable is which member of each pair of chromosomes a particular sperm or egg cell may get. Ask the parents of multiple children just how different those kids can turn out, despite drawing their chromosomes from the same “pool” in their parents, and you can add personal testimony to this little refresher in high school biology.

The example of meiosis is particularly telling because it directly addresses the issue of individual origins. My own individual genome, the collection of individual origins. My own individual genome, the collection of chromosomes that guides my growth and development, that gave me blue eyes and brown hair and blood type O, was decided by a series of "random" events. These include the outcomes of meiosis in the reproductive cells of my mother and father, and then the chance meeting of just one sperm cell in several million with an egg cell. The same is true for every human being—indeed, nearly every living thing—on this planet. And yet it is common for people of faith to say that their own being was preordained, that God called them by name and has a plan for their existence. The notion that the personal existence of each individual human being was willed by God is written into the moral theology of many religions and serves as the basis for codes of personal behavior in many of them. Nonetheless, I have never heard a sermon preached against the evils of genetics, or on the corrupting effects of meiosis on our youth.

Somehow we have managed to reconcile the randomness of meiosis and fertilization with a sense of purpose and value in our lives, despite the inherent unpredictability of the process.

So why can many who grouse about "chance" and "randomness" involved in evolution have no problem with the "chance" and "randomness" involved in how you were born (or even how your parents likely met in the first place)?

phank
08-10-2014, 10:45 AM
Of course I have seen it, so you tell me phank: Which one is wrong, the random mutation or the chance that in might be helpful? Natural Selection is just another way of saying that a random mutation(s) may be helpful in a given circumstance, or it may not or it may be neutral. It is still based on chance and nothing more.I guess I just don't know what you're trying to say. MOST people can look around and see that every organism alive is very well suited to its environment and lifestyle. Now, how did this extraordinary pattern happen? Are you arguing that it is pure coincidence? Or do you suspect there is some process at work that results in such a distinctive, universal pattern? Or are you unable to see the pattern at all?

Roy
08-10-2014, 10:53 AM
I guess I just don't know what you're trying to say. MOST people can look around and see that every organism alive is very well suited to its environment and lifestyle. Now, how did this extraordinary pattern happen? Are you arguing that it is pure coincidence?Yep, evolution is completely random. It's mere coincidence that out of ten broad colour categories - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, brown, white, grey, black - 99% of plant species have leaves that fall within the green category. Just pure coincidence.

Roy

klaus54
08-10-2014, 12:19 PM
gee I dunno.
He could have just zapped wings on us during a flood I suppose.

all I can think of, I guess He doesn't want you to know He exists.

....not that I took any actual time to think about it.

Wow! That's some god you got there.

K54

klaus54
08-10-2014, 12:23 PM
Only if you use "decide" to necessarily imply a conscious and deliberate consideration of alternatives, followed by a choice. But in a general sense, the environment does select, even if indirectly, and selection is a decision process in an important sense. I'm aware that those determined to misunderstand will misrepresent ANY choice of words or effort to explain or describe.

Yes, that's what I meant by "decide" only 'cuz that's the way seer means.

Anti-evolutionist have loved to reify/anthropomorphiz the genetic diversity/natural selection process since genetics since the Modern Synthesis.

I'm an "evolutionist" so I indeed agree with your mechanistic notion of "decide".

K54

jordanriver
08-10-2014, 12:28 PM
Wow! That's some god you got there.

K54

sorry I can't help you.

jordanriver
08-10-2014, 12:42 PM
Yep, evolution is completely random. It's mere coincidence that out of ten broad colour categories - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, brown, white, grey, black - 99% of plant species have leaves that fall within the green category. Just pure coincidence.

Roy
not a coincidence if the environment epigenetically activated the regulatory DNA in the chloroplasts.
then the ones with the most chloroplasts dominate the planet.

klaus54
08-10-2014, 12:45 PM
why Nat Sci? I wanted to post over at applied protology, but nobody seems to be there.

consilience, 'my' interpretation?
ok, I think it means when you still got a lot of cards left to play.

like, when I might think I gotcha, because of a genomic discrepancy (like the erv in 2 different groups, but not all the members share it, so that argument for common ancestor is gone)...

but then you say, say, not so fast, we still got the morphologists.
but then somebody finds a tetrapod older by millions of years than your fishapod, (no problem, just tack on a few more millions of years and say, 'hmm, I guess the fishapod had to appear a few million years before this new tetrapod discovery',
or if your "gradual descent" hits a snag, like "...2.Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction".
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

reversed direction?? huh what?......, ok, I get it, if the mutagenesis trait is an "I.D." program, of course, if the environment returns to its previous state, then of course the program would have to kick in and bring the population back to its previous state.

but how do you falsify something like "reverses direction occasionally"

besides, you still got more cards to play, like dating the neighborhood, but occasionally you are liable to find pig fossils from a known later date than the tuff your hominid was discovered.

IOW, maybe we Bible believers can find one, maybe even 2 good challenges, but all 3? or 4 or 5.
Not likely.

not likely to find a problem in the biochemistry PLUS the morphology PLUS the dating. Too many cards to falsify anything.


ok, what else, Genesis??

that's not science, that's CATEGORY: HISTORY.

I don't think it is consistent with your theories.

somebody's off, that's for sure.

Bzzzzztttt!!!

I have no idea what you're taking about here. Did you hear this is in a Sunday School class or from some guest preacher?

The squawking of YECs contra radiometric dating has become a tiresome drone that's been going on so long that we will soon be able to carbon date the earliest of the propaganda documents. Radiometric dating techniques have increased in number and have greatly improved in accuracy and consilience. Oops, there's that darned word again.

You might want to skim this document when have a couple hours. It's written by a Christian, but probably not a True Christian(tm).

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

[B]So you don't believe there's such an animal as Biblical Creation Science?

And don't you think HISTORY should supported with observations of data it leaves behind? For example, most if not all YECs believe there was a WORLD-WIDE FLOOD (even though the Hebrew has no word for a planet and they had no concept of the same). A cursory understanding of the current body of knowledge demolishes that notion. In fact that notion was demolished by evidence over 150 years ago.

The evidence for deep time/deep history/evolution is copious and consilient. Of course, until you learn the meaning of that word,...

You're getting REALLY close here. Ponder this some more...

K54

klaus54
08-10-2014, 12:52 PM
It doesn't matter Shuny, random is random, chance is chance I don't care what science calls it. There is no direction in evolution, mutations do not aim for a certain end. So again: Which one is wrong, the random mutation or the chance that in might be helpful?

I'll have to use your definitions in my next stats class. The best I've heard yet.

One simple question: Do you think this "random is random and chance is chance" stuff applies to the creationist-acceptable microevolution as well as to the creationist-bogeyman macroevolution?

~~shudder~~

K54

jordanriver
08-10-2014, 01:00 PM
I have not idea what you're taking about here. Do you hear this is in a Sunday School class or from some guest preacher?
no.
I got the koobi fora part from my Richard Lewin book.
I got the talk origins part from, well, talk origins.
I got the tiktaalik fail from sciencedaily.

I have more.
I have the morphology/biochemistry argument from the 1960s in one of my Richard Leakey books.
or my Donald Johanson book about the good old days, like the Keith-Sollas fued, (referring to Sollas, Keith complained about 'certain geologists' who wouldn't cooperate with favorable dating)

...evolution was my first love. Ever since I saw the apes throw their clubs into the air at the beginning of 2001: Space Odyssey.

Don't assume new Bible believers had no past lives.

Roy
08-10-2014, 01:04 PM
not a coincidence if the environment epigenetically activated the regulatory DNA in the chloroplasts.
then the ones with the most chloroplasts dominate the planet.But that would be non-random selection.

Roy

jordanriver
08-10-2014, 01:12 PM
But that would be non-random selection.

Roy

yup

selecting on/off switch from genome that was already there,

seer
08-10-2014, 01:14 PM
I guess I just don't know what you're trying to say. MOST people can look around and see that every organism alive is very well suited to its environment and lifestyle. Now, how did this extraordinary pattern happen? Are you arguing that it is pure coincidence? Or do you suspect there is some process at work that results in such a distinctive, universal pattern? Or are you unable to see the pattern at all?

Tell me phank did we have to turn out the way we did? Or was that luck? If we could have turned out differently or not survived at all - what is left but chance? So yes turning out the way we did is pure coincidence.

klaus54
08-10-2014, 01:24 PM
Tell me phank did we have to turn out the way we did? Or was that luck? If we could have turned out differently or not survived at all - what is left but chance? So yes turning out the way we did is pure coincidence.

Seer,

Did you have to turn out the way you did, or was it just "luck"? E.g., the randomness of which sperm fertilized a particular egg on a day of the month when your parents were in the mood.

Oh, when you get a "chance" -- microevolution and chance.

K54

Roy
08-10-2014, 01:25 PM
yup

selecting on/off switch from genome that was already there,I meant the planetary domination by plants with many chloroplasts, not the activation itself.

Roy

HMS_Beagle
08-10-2014, 01:27 PM
Tell me phank did we have to turn out the way we did? Or was that luck? If we could have turned out differently or not survived at all - what is left but chance? So yes turning out the way we did is pure coincidence.

Since you don't want to play my poker game how about we play dice?

We'll each take turns rolling an unbiased pair of dice.

If two of a kind show up (1:1, 2;2, 3:3, 4:4, 5:5, or 6:6) I pay you a dollar.

If any other number combinations show up you pay me a dollar.

Since the outcome is ALL CHANCE the game must be fair, right?

seer
08-10-2014, 01:40 PM
Since you don't want to play my poker game how about we play dice?

We'll each take turns rolling an unbiased pair of dice.

If two of a kind show up (1:1, 2;2, 3:3, 4:4, 5:5, or 6:6) I pay you a dollar.

If any other number combinations show up you pay me a dollar.

Since the outcome is ALL CHANCE the game must be fair, right?


What are you talking about. How does that answer the question.

phank
08-10-2014, 01:45 PM
Tell me phank did we have to turn out the way we did? Or was that luck? If we could have turned out differently or not survived at all - what is left but chance? So yes turning out the way we did is pure coincidence.

Toss a ball into the air, and let it fall and roll to a stop. Did it HAVE to stop exactly where it did? Did it HAVE to stop somewhere? Where it stopped is chance. THAT it stopped is not - it had to stop somewhere. Any organism turning out exactly the way it is, is chance. SOME organism that fits the environment is not.

In order to be "pure concidence", you must remove all non-random, directed components of a complex process. You are doing this by the simple expedient of simply ignoring them, and braying your unwillingness to THINK at everyone who corrects you. But those non-random components don't go away no matter how determined you are to pretend.

By now, I rescind my speculation about Morton's Demon. We're not looking at ideological blindness, and we're not looking at stupidity. We're looking at willful dishonesty.

HMS_Beagle
08-10-2014, 01:46 PM
What are you talking about. How does that answer the question.

Since my dice game is ALL CHANCE is it a fair game or not? Humor me and answer the simple question.

phank
08-10-2014, 01:46 PM
What are you talking about. How does that answer the question.

If you made even the slightest effort to answer the question, you might LEARN something. Why not try? It won't hurt that much - you can always play dumb as soon as you realize what you're saying.

Roy
08-10-2014, 01:48 PM
Tell me phank did we have to turn out the way we did? Or was that luck? If we could have turned out differently or not survived at all - what is left but chance? So yes turning out the way we did is pure coincidence.Sheesh. According to seer, anything that could have happened differently, no matter what the probabilities involved, is pure coincidence.

So if some-one playing poker gets dealt a full house aces over kings, that's pure coincidence, because it could have happened differently.

If they get dealt two pairs - aces and kings - and then pick up a match for one of them on their second draw, that's pure coincidence, because it could have happened differently.

If they get dealt a pair of kings and then sneak three aces out of their sleeve, that's pure coincidence, because it could have happened differently.

If they rig the deck so that they will be dealt a full house of aces over kings, that's pure coincidence, because it could have happened differently.

And if they are allowed to search through the deck and pick out three aces and two kings, well, since there could conceivably have been only two aces in the deck, or the first two aces might however improbably be incinerated by a small meteorite before a third is located, if they end up with a full house aces over kings, that's pure coincidence, because, well, it could have happened differently.

Seer is basically arguing that anything and everything is pure coincidence, no matter how probable it was beforehand. Well, if he wants to define "pure coincidence" in that way, that's up to him, but it has no more effect on reality than calling his brain a cabbage would make it suitable material for coleslaw and sauerkraut.

Roy

Roy
08-10-2014, 01:55 PM
Toss a ball into the air, and let it fall and roll to a stop. Did it HAVE to stop exactly where it did? Did it HAVE to stop somewhere? Where it stopped is chance. THAT it stopped is not - it had to stop somewhere. I disagree. It could have been snapped out of the air by a passing seagull that mistook it for an alka-seltzer in a bun, which then got knocked skywards by a handy nuclear blast before achieving escape velocity by being successively accelerated by impacts with a hot air balloon, a misaimed bullet and a decaying communications satellite, and eventually exiting our galaxy via several fortuitous close fly-pasts of several stars, none of which singed it in the slightest because of freak occurrences of sunspot activity.

Therefore, according to seer, that the ball returned to the ground is "pure coincidence".
By now, I rescind my speculation about Morton's Demon. We're not looking at ideological blindness, and we're not looking at stupidity. We're looking at willful dishonesty.Or bat-poop crazy.

Roy

klaus54
08-10-2014, 02:11 PM
Wow! That's some god you got there.

K54

So much for evangelicalism...

'Guess you're a Calvinist, and I'm not one of the Elect.

K54

seer
08-10-2014, 02:23 PM
Toss a ball into the air, and let it fall and roll to a stop. Did it HAVE to stop exactly where it did? Did it HAVE to stop somewhere? Where it stopped is chance. THAT it stopped is not - it had to stop somewhere. Any organism turning out exactly the way it is, is chance. SOME organism that fits the environment is not.

Phank so you agree that we did not have to turn out the way we did or survive at all - that is by chance. That means the fact that some organisms fit their environment only happen to fit by chance, since no organism had to fit their environment.

HMS_Beagle
08-10-2014, 02:36 PM
Phank so you agree that we did not have to turn out the way we did or survive at all - that is by chance. That means the fact that some organisms fit their environment only happen to fit by chance, since no organism had to fit their environment.

Kinda like claiming the water in the puddle didn't have to fit into its hole in the ground. :ahem:

phank
08-10-2014, 02:45 PM
Phank so you agree that we did not have to turn out the way we did or survive at all - that is by chance. That means the fact that some organisms fit their environment only happen to fit by chance, since no organism had to fit their environment.

And yet they all do. Why do you suppose that is? Pure coincidence?

seer
08-10-2014, 02:46 PM
Kinda like claiming the water in the puddle didn't have to fit into its hole in the ground. :ahem:

Correct, there didn't have to be any water in the first place, or the water only partially filled the whole.

seer
08-10-2014, 02:51 PM
And yet they all do. Why do you suppose that is? Pure coincidence?

What I have been talking about Phank are specific outcomes. Like us for instance, we did not have to survive or develop as we did - that is pure chance. Which you seemed to already agree with.

Roy
08-10-2014, 02:51 PM
Phank so you agree that we did not have to turn out the way we did or survive at all - that is by chance. That means the fact that some organisms fit their environment only happen to fit by chance, since no organism had to fit their environment.All living organisms fit their environment.*

(Consequent affirmation warning)

Roy

*though some better than others

klaus54
08-10-2014, 02:54 PM
What are you talking about. How does that answer the question.

Because the possible outcomes from rolling two dice form a sample space with 36 members. (1:5) is in the sample space, (7:3) is not.

Each event taken from this sample space has a probability. The distribution of these probabilities is not uniform. P[sum = 7] != P[snake eyes] = P[sum = 13].

There are constraints on and limits to the outcomes.

Like Phank's example of when a ball is thrown up in the air. The are limits to where it will land (it can't land a kilometer away), and where it lands follows a probability distribution. If the ball is thrown straight and there's no wind, it's more likely to hit ground within a circle 1 meter in diameter than without.

Probability is part of the way the universe works. In a sealed room there is a non-zero probability that all the air molecules will end up on one half of the room -- but this probability is <<1.

K54

P.S. Were you as a fertilized egg constrained by one of many possible outcomes (which of tens of millions of sperm cells per ejaculation) following a probability distribution?

Does this help you understand the notion of "chance"?

phank
08-10-2014, 02:56 PM
What I have been talking about Phank are specific outcomes. Like us for instance, we did not have to survive or develop as we did - that is pure chance. Which you seemed to already agree with.

seer, there really aren't any "outcomes", what there is, is an adaptive feedback process that continues every day. What we see today is a snapshot of the current biosphere, but this is like taking a photo of a river and describing every splash and ripple in the picture as "the outcome" of that river. We (that is, our species) are not an "outcome", we're simply the current state of one branch of a tree that never stops changing.

seer
08-10-2014, 03:04 PM
seer, there really aren't any "outcomes", what there is, is an adaptive feedback process that continues every day. What we see today is a snapshot of the current biosphere, but this is like taking a photo of a river and describing every splash and ripple in the picture as "the outcome" of that river. We (that is, our species) are not an "outcome", we're simply the current state of one branch of a tree that never stops changing.

And you agreed that we are the way we are by chance. As you said:Any organism turning out exactly the way it is, is chance. The mechanism doesn't matter, it is still pure chance that we ended up as we did.

klaus54
08-10-2014, 03:38 PM
And you agreed that we are the way we are by chance. As you said:Any organism turning out exactly the way it is, is chance. The mechanism doesn't matter, it is still pure chance that we ended up as we did.

Why does "any organism turning out exactly the way it is" important to you?

Is this a common complaint of anti-evolutionist?

Why does it matter?

YOU are YOU no matter how much (natural) "chance" was involved.

This discussion is a prime example of a "tempest in a teapot"!

K54

1479

http://img1.imagesbn.com/p/9780893702670_p0_v1_s260x420.JPG

phank
08-10-2014, 04:01 PM
And you agreed that we are the way we are by chance. As you said:Any organism turning out exactly the way it is, is chance. The mechanism doesn't matter, it is still pure chance that we ended up as we did.

I just finished explaining that nothing ever has or ever will "end up", it's an ongoing process. You quoted this, and immediately resumed your false presumption without missing a beat. But I have to ask, why did you quote me if your intention was to simply ignore everything you quoted. Did you even READ it?

seer
08-10-2014, 05:17 PM
I just finished explaining that nothing ever has or ever will "end up", it's an ongoing process. You quoted this, and immediately resumed your false presumption without missing a beat. But I have to ask, why did you quote me if your intention was to simply ignore everything you quoted. Did you even READ it?

Yes I read it, and the fact is we are the way we are by pure chance - it doesn't matter how we end up or not. We got lucky...

klaus54
08-10-2014, 05:36 PM
Yes I read it, and the fact is we are the way we are by pure chance - it doesn't matter how we end up or not. We got lucky...

Have it your way.

And, so what??

K54

phank
08-10-2014, 07:24 PM
Yes I read it, and the fact is we are the way we are by pure chance - it doesn't matter how we end up or not. We got lucky...

Based on how evolution works, I'd say that if we got to re-run the whole shebang over and over, like a computer model, that with every run we would see two things: (2) a biosphere composed of millions of species all well suited to their environments (and tracking those environments over time), and (2) Entirely different species with each run, no two species ever alike from one run to another.

Let's say that species have an average lifespan of a million years. So if you went back a few hundred million years and took a snapshot of the entire biosphere every million years moving forward, you'd see an almost entirely new population of species with each snapshot - a situation which would continue for at least hundreds of millions of years into our future. So you could say that every species in every snapshot "got lucky" during that particular interval.

And if we did this for every rerun, we'd see the "lucky" millions of species in every snapshot in every run.

And furthermore, if we were to create a zillion universes EXACTLY like ours is today, down to the last molecule, and then start them all up at that point and do our snapshots every million years, we'd see that within a few snapshots there would no longer be ANY overlap between ANY two universes.

seer
08-11-2014, 08:07 AM
Based on how evolution works, I'd say that if we got to re-run the whole shebang over and over, like a computer model, that with every run we would see two things: (2) a biosphere composed of millions of species all well suited to their environments (and tracking those environments over time), and (2) Entirely different species with each run, no two species ever alike from one run to another.

Let's say that species have an average lifespan of a million years. So if you went back a few hundred million years and took a snapshot of the entire biosphere every million years moving forward, you'd see an almost entirely new population of species with each snapshot - a situation which would continue for at least hundreds of millions of years into our future. So you could say that every species in every snapshot "got lucky" during that particular interval.

And if we did this for every rerun, we'd see the "lucky" millions of species in every snapshot in every run.

And furthermore, if we were to create a zillion universes EXACTLY like ours is today, down to the last molecule, and then start them all up at that point and do our snapshots every million years, we'd see that within a few snapshots there would no longer be ANY overlap between ANY two universes.

So like I said, we got lucky. To develop the way we did, or survive at all. Chance all the way through.

seer
08-11-2014, 08:09 AM
Have it your way.

And, so what??

K54

I was commenting on the AronRa video. He said there were not two choices - chance or design. There was a third option "natural selection" as if natural selection somehow removed chance. That is nonsense.

HMS_Beagle
08-11-2014, 08:40 AM
I was commenting on the AronRa video. He said there were not two choices - chance or design. There was a third option "natural selection" as if natural selection somehow removed chance. That is nonsense.

Yet you still won't tell me if my dice game is fair since it's all chance. :ahem:

Doesn't speak too well of your intellectual honesty now does it?

HMS_Beagle
08-11-2014, 08:43 AM
I was commenting on the AronRa video. He said there were not two choices - chance or design. There was a third option "natural selection" as if natural selection somehow removed chance. That is nonsense.

Except the third option - a process that combine some chance with some non-randomess - has been empirically demonstrated.

Just can't admit you were wrong, can you? :lol:

seer
08-11-2014, 09:15 AM
Except the third option - a process that combine some chance with some non-randomess - has been empirically demonstrated.

Just can't admit you were wrong, can you? :lol:

What is non-random about the way we turned out HMS? If we could have developed differently or not at all, then chance is the governing principle. How could it be otherwise?

Jorge
08-11-2014, 09:18 AM
By Jorge's idiot logic there's no sense holding the Summer Olympics because all the athletes perform the same, i.e.

The "more-likely / less-likely to win the 100m dash foot race" schtick is circular reasoning --- you can always, with 20-20 hindsight, say at the end that winner triumphed because "he had a speed advantage".

TO WIT: Why did he win? Simple, he won because it succeeded in crossing the finish line first! Why did he succeed in crossing the finish line first? Simple, he succeeded because he won the race (and this success was due to speed "advantage").

Thus, the "speed advantage" is determined because he "won the race" which in turn was determined by his "speed". IOW, a runner cannot win if he isn't the fastest and he cannot be the fastest he doesn't win - that much is simple common sense. The icing is in attributing it all to a "speed advantage" which may be done in an ad hoc fashion with little or no possibility of being falsified (especially for allegedly long-past history). Ergo, you have a classic example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning generating empirically unfalsifiable "science" statements.

Yes folks, our brain-dead YEC really does reason that way.

Until reading galactic-level crap like that above, I wouldn't have thought it possible that Beagle Boy's 'thinking' could decay any further than its already unfathomable depths. Alas, once again I am proven wrong. Beagle Boy has set a new, previously unimaginable, record-low into absurd, bizzarro "thinking".

The truly funny part - in an ironic sense - is that he actually believes that he has generated something worth sharing with the rest of humanity. NEWSFLASH Beagle Boy: your unoriginal 'contributions' rank quite a number of levels below the lowest-grade fertilizer.

Bwahahahahahaha :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

Jorge

Jorge
08-11-2014, 09:24 AM
Originally Posted by Beagle Boy:

Since you don't want to play my poker game how about we play dice?

We'll each take turns rolling an unbiased pair of dice.

If two of a kind show up (1:1, 2;2, 3:3, 4:4, 5:5, or 6:6) I pay you a dollar.

If any other number combinations show up you pay me a dollar.

Since the outcome is ALL CHANCE the game must be fair, right?




What are you talking about. How does that answer the question.

You MUST keep in mind who you are speaking to - BEAGLE BOY!

You are delusional if you are expecting rational, coherent and honest feedback.
I'm just trying to help ... it's your 'funeral'.

Jorge

Jorge
08-11-2014, 09:30 AM
Yes I read it, and the fact is we are the way we are by pure chance - it doesn't matter how we end up or not. We got lucky...

WRONG, we do not "end up the way we are by pure chance ... we got lucky".
Errr ... that is, not if the God of the Bible is LORD.

"God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein

Jorge

seer
08-11-2014, 09:41 AM
WRONG, we do not "end up the way we are by pure chance ... we got lucky".
Errr ... that is, not if the God of the Bible is LORD.

"God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein

Jorge

No, I'm saying if the evolutionists are correct then chance is the governing principle. I don't believe that of course.

klaus54
08-11-2014, 09:55 AM
I was commenting on the AronRa video. He said there were not two choices - chance or design. There was a third option "natural selection" as if natural selection somehow removed chance. That is nonsense.

I disagree with the video. There is a third option -- ultimate design. The universe evolves analogous to a limited free will. There are nearly unlimited possible outcomes constrained by laws of physics. This applies to biological evolution.

The philosophical problem is there's no way of distinguishing divine design from either "design" or "chance".\

And for a Christian theology that doesn't conflate God's "first book of creation" with nature "the second book of creation" (according I believe to Calvin), there's no problem. God works with humans' evolved nature. Jesus of Nazareth carried this evolved physical nature.

This whole thread is an atheist/intelligent design false dichotomy -- IMNSHO.

K54

klaus54
08-11-2014, 10:00 AM
Originally Posted by Beagle Boy:

Since you don't want to play my poker game how about we play dice?

We'll each take turns rolling an unbiased pair of dice.

If two of a kind show up (1:1, 2;2, 3:3, 4:4, 5:5, or 6:6) I pay you a dollar.

If any other number combinations show up you pay me a dollar.

Since the outcome is ALL CHANCE the game must be fair, right?





You MUST keep in mind who you are speaking to - BEAGLE BOY!

You are delusional if you are expecting rational, coherent and honest feedback.
I'm just trying to help ... it's your 'funeral'.

Jorge

Jorge,

Are YOU directly a product of chance or design? I mean at the egg and sperm level.

Read my lost comment to seer. I believe this whole thread exhibits a false dichotomy of atheism/ID, with you on the ID side.

K54

seer
08-11-2014, 10:08 AM
I disagree with the video. There is a third option -- ultimate design. The universe evolves analogous to a limited free will. There are nearly unlimited possible outcomes constrained by laws of physics. This applies to biological evolution.

But ultimate design would still be design even if all the properties were front loaded to play out as the cosmos unfolded.

phank
08-11-2014, 10:13 AM
So like I said, we got lucky. To develop the way we did, or survive at all. Chance all the way through.Except the part that isn't chance. But I suspect religion appeals to those for whom everything is all-black or all-white, and complex nuanced systems must be waved away.

klaus54
08-11-2014, 10:14 AM
But ultimate design would still be design even if all the properties were front loaded to play out as the cosmos unfolded.

That's my point, and that's why the argument in this thread is a false dichotomy.

"Free will design" (or whatever the heck you wanna call it) is empirically indistinguishable from "pure" chance -- in fact it involves chance all the way through.

And my two comments (to reiterate) are 1) false dichotomy; 2) Big deal.

K54

seer
08-11-2014, 10:36 AM
Except the part that isn't chance. But I suspect religion appeals to those for whom everything is all-black or all-white, and complex nuanced systems must be waved away.

What part isn't chance phank? Look for 10 pages or so I have been speaking of outcomes, you don't like the word outcome so fine. So I asked about how we developed. Look we have number choices. We developed as we did, we developed to be somewhat similar to what we are today, or we did not develop at all, we did not survive as a species, or we really never got past the higher primate stage. How is that "outcome" not based on chance. Where is the non-randomness in the picture with these choices?

klaus54
08-11-2014, 10:40 AM
Except the part that isn't chance. But I suspect religion appeals to those for whom everything is all-black or all-white, and complex nuanced systems must be waved away.

Indeed. "Nuanced" is not in the anti-evolutionary lexicon.

K54

phank
08-11-2014, 10:53 AM
What part isn't chance phank?The SELECTION part, seer. Selection is not chance.


Where is the non-randomness in the picture with these choices?In the selection for suitability for environment. Selection is by definition non-random. Duh!

seer
08-11-2014, 11:12 AM
The SELECTION part, seer. Selection is not chance.

In the selection for suitability for environment. Selection is by definition non-random. Duh!

So we had to turn out this way? That is the whole point/question phank, the point I have been making for ten pages. If you say no, we did not have to turn out this way, then why did we? If it isn't by chance then what is it by? And when you speak of selection how is that saying any more than in some situations a mutation may be helpful? Of course in a different situation it may be harmful or have no effect at all.

phank
08-11-2014, 11:40 AM
So we had to turn out this way? That is the whole point/question phank, the point I have been making for ten pages. If you say no, we did not have to turn out this way, then why did we? If it isn't by chance then what is it by? And when you speak of selection how is that saying any more than in some situations a mutation may be helpful? Of course in a different situation it may be harmful or have no effect at all.

Why ask when you ignore all answers and attempts to explain?

What we have is a FEEDBACK PROCESS. It has random components, but the process itself is not random.

Until you can explain in your own words what a probability distribution is, I see no sense trying to chase your self-serving terminology around in circles.

seer
08-11-2014, 12:26 PM
Why ask when you ignore all answers and attempts to explain?

What we have is a FEEDBACK PROCESS. It has random components, but the process itself is not random.

Until you can explain in your own words what a probability distribution is, I see no sense trying to chase your self-serving terminology around in circles.

See there you go again. It is the outcomes that I claim are the result of pure chance.

Let's go back to the beetle example:

1. We have a population of brown beetles.

2. A mutation spreads the population causing some of the beetles to be green.

3. The green beetles are better camouflaged than the brown.

4. The birds eats more of the brown beetles.

5. Therefore the green beetles survive better and thrive. (that is one outcome).

But the fact that the green beetle survived or was selected is too the result of chance, because:

1. The beetles happen to find themselves in a niche where the green beetle was better camouflaged than the brown. They just could as well found themselves in a niche where the brown beetle was better camouflaged (a different outcome).

2. Or they could have found themselves in a niche where camouflaged didn't make much difference so the birds ate them fairly equally (a different outcome).

3. Or they could have found themselves in a niche where the birds that like to eat these beetles did not exist (a different outcome).

So back to the first example, outcome #5, the green beetle surviving. That outcome is only possible because of the specific condition in the niche, but those very conditions are only there by chance. If there were different conditions we would have different outcomes. So chance is driving outcomes even when selection is present.

phank
08-11-2014, 12:45 PM
See there you go again. It is the outcomes that I claim are the result of pure chance.

Let's go back to the beetle example:

1. We have a population of brown beetles.

2. A mutation spreads the population causing some of the beetles to be green.

3. The green beetles are better camouflaged than the brown.

4. The birds eats more of the brown beetles.

5. Therefore the green beetles survive better and thrive. (that is one outcome).

But the fact that the green beetle survived or was selected is too the result of chance, because:

1. The beetles happen to find themselves in a niche where the green beetle was better camouflaged than the brown. They just could as well found themselves in a niche where the brown beetle was better camouflaged (a different outcome).

2. Or they could have found themselves in a niche where camouflaged didn't make much difference so the birds ate them fairly equally (a different outcome).

3. Or they could have found themselves in a niche where the birds that like to eat these beetles did not exist (a different outcome).

So back to the first example, outcome #5, the green beetle surviving. That outcome is only possible because of the specific condition in the niche, but those very conditions are only there by chance. If there were different conditions we would have different outcomes. So chance is driving outcomes even when selection is present.

I can't find your explanation of a probability distribution. I'm tired of your word games.

seer
08-11-2014, 12:54 PM
I can't find your explanation of a probability distribution. I'm tired of your word games.

What word games? I am being clear and straight forward. It is obvious that outcomes are determined by conditions and those very conditions are random, therefore they would give us random outcomes.

phank
08-11-2014, 12:57 PM
What word games? I am being clear and straight forward. It is obvious that outcomes are determined by conditions and those very conditions are random, therefore they would give us random outcomes.

Probability distribution, seer. Conditions are not "random", they have a probability distribution. Outcomes are not "random", they have a probability distribution. Your word games are, you are misusing "random" and "chance", using them to mean multiple things at whim. People here (everyone but Jorge, who doesn't count) have been interpreting your use of the word "random" to mean a flat probability distribution, and pointing out that reality is not flat. But until you can describe what a probability distribution is, you are not being clear and straightforward.

seer
08-11-2014, 01:06 PM
Probability distribution, seer. Conditions are not "random", they have a probability distribution. Outcomes are not "random", they have a probability distribution. Your word games are, you are misusing "random" and "chance", using them to mean multiple things at whim. People here (everyone but Jorge, who doesn't count) have been interpreting your use of the word "random" to mean a flat probability distribution, and pointing out that reality is not flat. But until you can describe what a probability distribution is, you are not being clear and straightforward.

Then show me phank how probability distribution would apply to my example with the beetles, that would be a real world problem we can flesh this out with. How would that make the outcomes less random?

phank
08-11-2014, 01:49 PM
Then show me phank how probability distribution would apply to my example with the beetles, that would be a real world problem we can flesh this out with. How would that make the outcomes less random?

Green beetles more common than brown beetles. Not random.

Think of flipping a coin. If it comes up heads 90% of the time, sooner or later you might (or at least sensible people might) suspect that the coin is not producing "random" results.

HMS_Beagle
08-11-2014, 01:53 PM
(braaaaapp!)

Jorge

Looks like fart-n-dart Jorge has been by again. He can't address the critiques so he passes more gas then runs the other way. Same as it ever was. :ahem:

shunyadragon
08-11-2014, 02:43 PM
What word games? I am being clear and straight forward. It is obvious that outcomes are determined by conditions and those very conditions are random, therefore they would give us random outcomes.

'Conditions' by definition are not random. actually, the range of possible different outcomes of events may be what you would be referring to as random, but it remains a bad word and concept from the perspective of science, and does not explain the nature of the possible different outcomes in natural events.

I believe your argument is that there are different possible outcomes in the chain of natural events that lead to the nature of our solar system, our planet, life, evolution and the result humanity. Yes, in the natural course of events this is possible, and yes the possible outcome may not have included humanity as we know it. This is generally the view of science, and Methodological Naturalism. I do not think this argument has any traction with atheists, nor agnostics.

Theists on the other hand do believe that the intent of Creation (as far as our universe and planet goes) is as what we experience. Now the methods of Creation as we can understand through science is not going to support the theistic nor the atheistic world view. It is simply as we can understand our world. It works better without an agenda to manipulate the evidence to fit one world view.

phank
08-11-2014, 02:53 PM
I do not think this argument has any traction with atheists, nor agnostics.

Now the methods of Creation as we can understand through science is not going to support the theistic nor the atheistic world view. It is simply as we can understand our world. It works better without an agenda to manipulate the evidence to fit one world view.

Based on context, I have no idea what you regard as atheism. To me, it simply means lack of belief in the supernatural. Methodological naturalism is entirely compatible with atheism and with much of theism as well. Seems to me you're trying to say "here is the set of beliefs I think those who LACK this set of beliefs must hold." I can't quite parse this.

seer
08-12-2014, 04:58 AM
Green beetles more common than brown beetles. Not random.

But you agree that the condition (the birds that happen in be in that niche and happen to have a taste for beetles) that cause this change - was a random event, correct?


Think of flipping a coin. If it comes up heads 90% of the time, sooner or later you might (or at least sensible people might) suspect that the coin is not producing "random" results.

As far as outcomes no such thing happens in evolution. Listen I'm not saying that certain mutations can not be helpful in certain conditions, but since those conditions themselves are open to chance, there are never certain outcomes. Like with our beetle

phank
08-12-2014, 06:02 AM
But you agree that the condition (the birds that happen in be in that niche and happen to have a taste for beetles) that cause this change - was a random event, correct?



As far as outcomes no such thing happens in evolution. Listen I'm not saying that certain mutations can not be helpful in certain conditions, but since those conditions themselves are open to chance, there are never certain outcomes. Like with our beetle

Nonrandom does not mean "certain". The fact that most beetles are green, and under the same conditions most beetles would be green every time, means there is something very non-random going on. Our challenge here is to get you to acknowledge this. You seem to believe that if ANY component of ANY process is unpredictable, therefore EVERY component is unpredictable. Yet the green beetles will always predominate.

Think of a watershed. The exact pattern of water flow may be due to chance, but the fact that the water always runs downhill is NOT due to chance. So a watershed is the result of both random and nonrandom factors. You seem to think that if you repeat that the shape of the terrain is due to chance enough times, gravity will somehow disappear.

seer
08-12-2014, 06:22 AM
Nonrandom does not mean "certain". The fact that most beetles are green, and under the same conditions most beetles would be green every time, means there is something very non-random going on. Our challenge here is to get you to acknowledge this. You seem to believe that if ANY component of ANY process is unpredictable, therefore EVERY component is unpredictable. Yet the green beetles will always predominate.

Really phank? Are not the conditions themselves are also random? What if the birds did not eat beetles? What if the niche favored the brown beetle? What if the birds pretty much ate all the beetles? It is because of these random conditions that outcomes are governed by chance and nothing else.


Think of a watershed. The exact pattern of water flow may be due to chance, but the fact that the water always runs downhill is NOT due to chance. So a watershed is the result of both random and nonrandom factors. You seem to think that if you repeat that the shape of the terrain is due to chance enough times, gravity will somehow disappear.

It is a false comparison. No matter which path the water follows (conditions) it will always reach the bottom (outcome). It is not the same for evolution, that no matter the condition we will always have the same outcome (the green beetle surviving).

phank
08-12-2014, 06:39 AM
Really phank? Are not the conditions themselves are also random? What if the birds did not eat beetles? What if the niche favored the brown beetle? What if the birds pretty much ate all the beetles? It is because of these random conditions that outcomes are governed by chance and nothing else. Just because the conditions are unpredictable, doesn't mean that the adaptations to these conditions are unpredictable.


It is a false comparison. No matter which path the water follows (conditions) it will always reach the bottom (outcome). You are playing games again. There are many many places that might be considered "the bottom", and you can't predict WHICH ONE will be followed. And if there are countless different "outcomes" in the watershed, and countless different "outcomes" in evolution, then the comparison is entirely accurate. You are demanding precise results in one case, and regarding a wide range of results as "the same" in the other case.


It is not the same for evolution, that no matter the condition we will always have the same outcome (the green beetle surviving).We will always have adaptation to fit the environment. No matter what the environment, no matter what sorts of organisms are adapting to it, they will ALWAYS adapt to fit. That is non-random.

seer
08-12-2014, 08:51 AM
Just because the conditions are unpredictable, doesn't mean that the adaptations to these conditions are unpredictable.

No it makes the outcomes dependent on chance conditions.


You are playing games again. There are many many places that might be considered "the bottom", and you can't predict WHICH ONE will be followed. And if there are countless different "outcomes" in the watershed, and countless different "outcomes" in evolution, then the comparison is entirely accurate. You are demanding precise results in one case, and regarding a wide range of results as "the same" in the other case.

I am not playing games phank. The outcome with the water shed is that water will always run down hill. Our outcome (the green beetle surviving) does not necessarily follow since it depends on shifting conditions. That is still by chance.



We will always have adaptation to fit the environment. No matter what the environment, no matter what sorts of organisms are adapting to it, they will ALWAYS adapt to fit. That is non-random.

Really? So a species can never fail to adapt and go extinct instead?

Jorge
08-12-2014, 10:06 AM
No, I'm saying if the evolutionists are correct then chance is the governing principle. I don't believe that of course.

Ahhh ... okay.

Yes - absolutely yes! - in Evolution, chance is indeed the "Great Creator". They refuse to accept/admit this because it makes them look stupider than they already are. I wish you "luck" in your efforts to get them to 'fess up.

Jorge

Jorge
08-12-2014, 10:15 AM
Jorge,

Are YOU directly a product of chance or design? I mean at the egg and sperm level.

Read my lost comment to seer. I believe this whole thread exhibits a false dichotomy of atheism/ID, with you on the ID side.

K54

It is horrifically frightening that there are "Christians" like yourself running around loose. Your basic knowledge of orthodox Christian theology is appalling! This fact explains why things are going downhill as fast as they are ... the reasons why Old Agers and Theistic Evolutionists have joined forces with Atheists/Humanists to 'take over' our society. Do carry on, Santa Klaus ... can't wait to hear your next screamer.

Jorge

phank
08-12-2014, 10:39 AM
No it makes the outcomes dependent on chance conditions. Yes, this is so. The Las Vegas casinos do not control the roll of the dice, fall of the cards, ball in the roulette wheel. But they know to well within 1% what their take will be on the day's handle. The individual rolls are random, but the odds are very predictable.


I am not playing games phank. The outcome with the water shed is that water will always run down hill. Our outcome (the green beetle surviving) does not necessarily follow since it depends on shifting conditions. That is still by chance. You are playing games. In the case of evolution, you want one particular specific outcome. In the case of the watershed, you're content with any old outcome so long as it's somewhere downhill. You are equivocating, using different rules to fit your foregone conclusions. This is game-playing.


Really? So a species can never fail to adapt and go extinct instead?All species eventually fail to adapt and go extinct. But the process of adaptation does not change. Those unable to adapt are replaced with species better adapted. Not at random, BETTER ADAPTED. You know, by design and not by chance.

seer
08-12-2014, 10:51 AM
Yes, this is so. The Las Vegas casinos do not control the roll of the dice, fall of the cards, ball in the roulette wheel. But they know to well within 1% what their take will be on the day's handle. The individual rolls are random, but the odds are very predictable.

Good, so we agree that like with individual rolls, individual outcomes are random. So why are you arguing with me?


You are playing games. In the case of evolution, you want one particular specific outcome. In the case of the watershed, you're content with any old outcome so long as it's somewhere downhill. You are equivocating, using different rules to fit your foregone conclusions. This is game-playing.

For ten or so pages phank I have only been speaking of specific outcomes (like why humans are they way they are, or our green beetles). And the fact that natural selection does not remove randomness when dealing with particular outcomes. But given what you wrote above I take it we agree.


All species eventually fail to adapt and go extinct. But the process of adaptation does not change. Those unable to adapt are replaced with species better adapted. Not at random, BETTER ADAPTED. You know, by design and not by chance.

That doesn't follow, the fact is that all species could go extinct.

HMS_Beagle
08-12-2014, 11:05 AM
Good, so we agree that like with individual rolls, individual outcomes are random. So why are you arguing with me?


Individual rolls are random. Long term patterns are very predictable.

Why are you still playing these childish word games?

klaus54
08-12-2014, 11:05 AM
It is horrifically frightening that there are "Christians" like yourself running around loose. Your basic knowledge of orthodox Christian theology is appalling! This fact explains why things are going downhill as fast as they are ... the reasons why Old Agers and Theistic Evolutionists have joined forces with Atheists/Humanists to 'take over' our society. Do carry on, Santa Klaus ... can't wait to hear your next screamer.

Jorge

Are YOU directly the product of design or chance?

Yes or no?

K54

phank
08-12-2014, 11:41 AM
For ten or so pages phank I have only been speaking of specific outcomes (like why humans are they way they are, or our green beetles). And the fact that natural selection does not remove randomness when dealing with particular outcomes.


And everyone has been trying to explain to you that evolution is not directed toward particular outcomes. But that does NOT mean the process is random, because it is not. YOU have been trying to argue that it's ALL random, and in order to make your point you must even argue that DESIGN is random, and SELECTION is random. And if your faith requires that everything is black, you must argue that white is also black. But you seem to be the only person fooled by this pretense.

seer
08-12-2014, 11:56 AM
Individual rolls are random. Long term patterns are very predictable.

Why are you still playing these childish word games?

But I haven't been speaking of long term patterns - I have been speaking of specific outcomes, and those are random. We are the way we are by chance alone.

seer
08-12-2014, 12:01 PM
And everyone has been trying to explain to you that evolution is not directed toward particular outcomes. But that does NOT mean the process is random, because it is not. YOU have been trying to argue that it's ALL random, and in order to make your point you must even argue that DESIGN is random, and SELECTION is random. And if your faith requires that everything is black, you must argue that white is also black. But you seem to be the only person fooled by this pretense.

You already agreed that the "individual rolls are random, but the odds are very predictable." So when it comes to individual outcomes, they are random. There is nothing predictable about outcomes.

Back on page six I said this:


But are not the environments themselves the result of chance events? And isn't it a chance event that an organism happens to find itself in an environment that selects a specific beneficial mutation? I mean it is possible for a mutation or mutations to have a positive effect in one environment and a negative effect in another environment. So that would be chance also - correct?

HMS_Beagle
08-12-2014, 12:09 PM
But I haven't been speaking of long term patterns

The results of selection on a population forms long term patterns.


I have been speaking of specific outcomes, and those are random. We are the way we are by chance alone.

Sorry, the rest of us have been attempting to educate you on actual evolutionary science. Don't let us interrupt your childish word playing. :ahem:

phank
08-12-2014, 12:14 PM
You already agreed that the "individual rolls are random, but the odds are very predictable." So when it comes to individual outcomes, they are random. There is nothing predictable about outcomes. Which the casinos predict to well within 1%, every single day. Isn't that amazing?

seer
08-12-2014, 12:24 PM
Which the casinos predict to well within 1%, every single day. Isn't that amazing?

But you already agree that individual rolls are random. So you agree with me, why do you keep arguing?

HMS_Beagle
08-12-2014, 12:40 PM
But you already agree that individual rolls are random. So you agree with me, why do you keep arguing?

Species don't evolve by only random genetic variations. The process also includes environment-driven nonrandom selection. You've only had that explained to you a dozen times now. But by all means hang on to your willful ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation of the actual science. Make all the YECs proud!

seer
08-12-2014, 12:49 PM
Species don't evolve by only random genetic variations. The process also includes environment-driven nonrandom selection. You've only had that explained to you a dozen times now. But by all means hang on to your willful ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation of the actual science. Make all the YECs proud!

Stop being an idiot HMS. Go back to my beetle example, I included the environment and showed that SPECIFIC OUTCOMES are still chance driven:



1. We have a population of brown beetles.

2. A mutation spreads the population causing some of the beetles to be green.

3. The green beetles are better camouflaged than the brown.

4. The birds eats more of the brown beetles.

5. Therefore the green beetles survive better and thrive. (that is one outcome).

But the fact that the green beetle survived or was selected is too the result of chance, because:

1. The beetles happen to find themselves in a niche where the green beetle was better camouflaged than the brown. They just could as well found themselves in a niche where the brown beetle was better camouflaged (a different outcome).

2. Or they could have found themselves in a niche where camouflaged didn't make much difference so the birds ate them fairly equally (a different outcome).

3. Or they could have found themselves in a niche where the birds that like to eat these beetles did not exist (a different outcome).

So back to the first example, outcome #5, the green beetle surviving. That outcome is only possible because of the specific condition in the niche, but those very conditions are only there by chance. If there were different conditions we would have different outcomes. So chance is driving outcomes even when selection is present.

HMS_Beagle
08-12-2014, 01:07 PM
Stop being an idiot HMS. Go back to my beetle example, I included the environment and showed that SPECIFIC OUTCOMES are still chance driven:

Stop being a word-game playing moron. Or keep it up and keep getting the ridicule you deserve. Your choice.

klaus54
08-12-2014, 01:21 PM
Individual rolls are random. Long term patterns are very predictable.

Why are you still playing these childish word games?

When I bake rolls no two are exactly the same. Chance or design?

K54

phank
08-12-2014, 02:31 PM
But you already agree that individual rolls are random. So you agree with me, why do you keep arguing?

Because you have made the claim that evolution is entirely a random process, without any non-random components anywhere to be found. This claim is simply false. Random mutations alone are insufficient for evolution to occur. Selection alone is insufficient as well. The process requires BOTH random and nonrandom components. You have not yet given any indication that you understand this. The OP pointed out that when it comes to evolution, neither aspect alone is sufficient, you need a combination.

What people have been trying to get you to understand is that it is this combination that makes evolution work at all. You know that sodium alone is toxic, and chlorine alone is toxic, but together they make common table salt. Combinations make qualitative differences. When I keep pointing out that casinos can predict their take to within 1%, and you keep insisting that there is "nothing predictable about the outcomes", we clearly do not agree. I'll go with the casinos - they didn't build Las Vegas by random guessing.

klaus54
08-12-2014, 03:56 PM
Example of a probability distribution

Let's the heights of adult male !Kung San are normally distributed with mean = 132 cm and standard deviation = 6 cm.

Pick one man at random. (Note the random word.)

The probability that his height is between 132 cm and 138 cm is 34%.

The probability this his height exceeds 138 cm is 16%.

The probabilities of choosing individual heights at random are not equal (not a uniform probability distribution).

=======
Not think of selecting a man at random as the genome of an organism.

Think of the probability distribution as measuring the likelihood of reproducing.

Does this help?

K54

phank
08-12-2014, 05:32 PM
Example of a probability distribution

Let's the heights of adult male !Kung San are normally distributed with mean = 132 cm and standard deviation = 6 cm.

Pick one man at random. (Note the random word.)

The probability that his height is between 132 cm and 138 cm is 34%.

The probability this his height exceeds 138 cm is 16%.

The probabilities of choosing individual heights at random are not equal (not a uniform probability distribution).

=======
Not think of selecting a man at random as the genome of an organism.

Think of the probability distribution as measuring the likelihood of reproducing.

Does this help?

K54

Let's slow down a little. You specify a standard deviation of 6cm. To convert to more familiar terms, these men average 4 feet 4 inches tall, with a standard deviation of about 2 1/2 inches. This means that if we look at heights between about 4' 1.5" and 4' 6.5", we are looking at about 68% of the adult men. This means, given the normal distribution, that about 32% of men are either taller or shorter than this range, with about 16% in each group. In other words, about 2/3 of the men are in the "normal" range, with about 1/6th being shorter and 1/6th being taller.

Now, as I understand it. the probability of a random man's hight being between 132 and 135 cm is 34%. The probability of his height being between 129cm and 132cm is also 34%. I think you got this wrong.

But beside all that, I think your central point that a normal poisson distribution is not a flat distribution has been lost here. I think you need to describe a flat distribution before you start getting into quadratics, poisson distributions, skewness and kurtosis. I suspect people lose at craps because they simply do not know that 7 is more common than 3.

klaus54
08-12-2014, 05:52 PM
Let's slow down a little. You specify a standard deviation of 6cm. To convert to more familiar terms, these men average 4 feet 4 inches tall, with a standard deviation of about 2 1/2 inches. This means that if we look at heights between about 4' 1.5" and 4' 6.5", we are looking at about 68% of the adult men. This means, given the normal distribution, that about 32% of men are either taller or shorter than this range, with about 16% in each group. In other words, about 2/3 of the men are in the "normal" range, with about 1/6th being shorter and 1/6th being taller.

Now, as I understand it. the probability of a random man's hight being between 132 and 135 cm is 34%. The probability of his height being between 129cm and 132cm is also 34%. I think you got this wrong.

But beside all that, I think your central point that a normal poisson distribution is not a flat distribution has been lost here. I think you need to describe a flat distribution before you start getting into quadratics, poisson distributions, skewness and kurtosis. I suspect people lose at craps because they simply do not know that 7 is more common than 3.

I made up the numbers. I knew that "bushmen" were short but not that short!

Assuming a normal distribution of heights, X, (which is easiest to use and likely fairly accurate):

If the mean = median = 132 then P[X >= 132] = 50%. Since standard deviation = 6, then P[126 < X < 138] = 68%, so by symmetry, P[132 < X < 138] = 34% and P[X>138] = 16%

Yes, the point is the probabilities across a random selection from the population are not uniform.

Randomness + non-randomness.

This should be easy enough for seer to understand. It involves "chance" but the outcome is not uniform.

I also gave the example of a ball shot straight up with no lateral winds, X = point where ball lands. Let D = a disk of radius 1 meter centered at the point of release. Then P[X inside D] >> P[X outside D].

K54

1593

shunyadragon
08-12-2014, 06:05 PM
Based on context, I have no idea what you regard as atheism. To me, it simply means lack of belief in the supernatural. Methodological naturalism is entirely compatible with atheism and with much of theism as well. Seems to me you're trying to say "here is the set of beliefs I think those who LACK this set of beliefs must hold." I can't quite parse this.

That's an ok definition.

Simple, seer's arguments are geared to attack atheism, and the possibility that natural world without God, evolution could result in the existence of humanity if God did not deliberately create humanity. I do not believe his argument has traction for those who do nor believe in a 'Source' some call God(s).

phank
08-12-2014, 06:21 PM
I made up the numbers. I knew that "bushmen" were short but not that short! I think you are going WAY over his head. I don't think he understands probability distributions at all. A Poisson distrubution is far from flat, but I spoke of skewness and kurtosos, without even going into different distributions. He STILL thinks that "random" means "all outcomes are equally probable." He has assiduously ignnored EVERY effort to show this isn't the case. We are dealing here with ARMORED ignorance.