Great New AronRa video, Evolution is a fact

[seer]

For Jorge,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVo7l...ukTekgSRZrjadw

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]

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]

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]

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?

Jorge

Cue rimshot.

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

K54

[seer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.