What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

Rttjc...evolution and evolutionists do not say that mutations happen intrinsically or that organisms control their mutations...they most certainly do not--they die the same species they are born as. But some organisms preferentially survive and reproduce and thus pass on the info. that helped them do so exponentially.

Damn...you are just sooo sooo misinformed by the sources you seem to trust the most.
 
articulett said:
rttjc...mountains don't have builders...

Humans evolved to see design where the is none and to see the world as being made to bring forth them... but any creature could think the same. All creatures fit the niche they evolved to fit. As hard on your ego as it is, the universe was not created with you in mind and no outside overlord gives a rats ass about what you believe. On the positive side, you still have a chance to learn the information that humans for the first time in history have the chance to know. And you don't need to believe it for it to be true...it is whether you believe it or not. All you need is a little bit of education and then you can assess the evidence for yourself instead of repeating diatribes of known creationists and pretending you came up with your silly arguments on your own.

Suppose your beliefs were wrong and evolution WAS right? Would you want to even know? And if so, how do you imagine that information would be conveyed to you and by whom. If creationists are right I imagine they will have evidence that others can measure and replicate, but so far they all have different creation stories and not a single bit of evidence to support any of their claims.

To me, you just seem to be spending a lot of energy keeping a meme virus alive--energy that you could spend learning useful stuff. But hey, if it makes you feel special and holier than thou, knock yourself out. You are a fabulous example of why Dawkins et. al. go out of their way to show how natural selection is "not random" as far as I'm concerned. You are like one of those wacky young earth creationists that even the "intelligent design" crowd doesn't want associated with them.

Anyhow...did you know that Behe concedes that humans and apes share a common ancestor? So do most Christians around the world, actually--including Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian and director of the Human Genome project. So you can learn about evolution without being afraid of hell, you know... and your god can fight his own battles, dear--he's omnipotent, isn't he?

Oh, and that "common sense" you refer too--it was a title of a book by Thomas Paine--an atheist, don't you know.

In any case, "common sense" is what people used and concluded the earth was flat for eons. Your omniscient invisible overlord didn't clue anyone into the fact that it was otherwise in any of his holy books.
Click to expand...

What about a mountain reflect complexity? I building is complex. A living organism is complex. A mountain is just a pointless pile of rocks.

Thomas Paine. Didn't he try to become a minister in England? Wasn't preacher? Is an evolutionists' history knowledge as dubious as his science knowledge?

I know when the bitter attacks on creationism begin that the facts are going to move toward the ridiculous.

If I were wrong about creation I would most certainly like to know. But I ask you the same question. What if you are wrong?
 
rittjc said:
Splitting words is the art form of the evolutionist. Its sort of like hearing Bill Clinton's perjury testimony saying "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

We will redefine what random is so we can switch back and forth with it to keep us from being pinned in. Why so many philosophical tangents in explaining evolution? Ever wonder?
Click to expand...

It was an obstructing justice trial... and this administration is guilty of a lot bigger lies than not admitting to a blowjob.

But your political bias fits in well with your ignorance. Religiosity, red states, stupidity, and dysfunction all seem to sort together in some sort of stochastic fashion--

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/07/evolution_creat.html
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847

Nothing like people who get their ideologies ready spun.

For the sake of the rest of the inhabitants on this planet, may I suggest that you refrain from spawning.
 
articulett said:
Rttjc...evolution and evolutionists do not say that mutations happen intrinsically or that organisms control their mutations...they most certainly do not--they die the same species they are born as. But some organisms preferentially survive and reproduce and thus pass on the info. that helped them do so exponentially.

Damn...you are just sooo sooo misinformed by the sources you seem to trust the most.
Click to expand...

You are the first one I know that tries to tie external governance to evolution.
 
rittjc said:
What about a mountain reflect complexity? I building is complex. A living organism is complex. A mountain is just a pointless pile of rocks.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Thomas Paine. Didn't he try to become a minister in England? Wasn't preacher? Is an evolutionists' history knowledge as dubious as his science knowledge?
Click to expand...


Wrong.

I know when the bitter attacks on creationism begin that the facts are going to move toward the ridiculous.

If I were wrong about creation I would most certainly like to know. But I ask you the same question. What if you are wrong?
Click to expand...


If I were wrong about evolution, there would be some sort of evidence of an alternative. Having never seen any of this evidence, I seriously doubt that evolution is wrong.
 
articulett said:
It was an obstructing justice trial... and this administration is guilty of a lot bigger lies than not admitting to a blowjob.

But your political bias fits in well with your ignorance. Religiosity, red states, stupidity, and dysfunction all seem to sort together in some sort of stochastic fashion--

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/07/evolution_creat.html
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847

Nothing like people who get their ideologies ready spun.

For the sake of the rest of the inhabitants on this planet, may I suggest that you refrain from spawning.
Click to expand...

Again your accusations of Bush lying are as baseless as your evidence of evolution. Don't be hater. It doesn't push you toward truth. Clinton admitted he lied and there was evidence to support it. All you have are the same liberal talking points that have nothing but koolaid drinking paranoia and the belief that everything from the existence of trees to the global warming is a great conspiracy. Heck you people can't even get your story straight as to whether Bush is a bumbling idiot or a genius megalomaniac.

You sound like a bunch of people who have dropped too much acid and have lost control of their thought faculties.
 
rittjc said:
Again your accusations of Bush lying are as baseless as your evidence of evolution. Don't be hater. It doesn't push you toward truth. Clinton admitted he lied and there was evidence to support it. All you have are the same liberal talking points that have nothing but koolaid drinking paranoia and the belief that everything from the existence of trees to the global warming is a great conspiracy. Heck you people can't even get your story straight as to whether Bush is a bumbling idiot or a genius megalomaniac.

You sound like a bunch of people who have dropped too much acid and have lost control of their thought faculties.
Click to expand...


Politics is thataway. ->

Conspiracy Theories is over there. <-
 
Hokulele said:
Wrong.




Wrong.




If I were wrong about evolution, there would be some sort of evidence of an alternative. Having never seen any of this evidence, I seriously doubt that evolution is wrong.
Click to expand...

Creation has circumstantial evidence. Evolution claims you have to believe that Natural Selection is their evidence. If Natural Selection is always a destructive process, then why would they even float that as evidence of evolution's ability to create life forms?

That makes no sense. You might as well postulate that a bomb is a creator of complexity. The both are saying the exact same thing, just to different degrees. Destructive processes are never constructive processes, that is simply a contradiction in terms.
 
rittjc said:
If I were wrong about creation I would most certainly like to know. But I ask you the same question. What if you are wrong?
Click to expand...

Then I'm sure the people with the correct creation story will present evidence and scientists could go about utilizing that knowledge. If the Muslim creation story amasses evidence proving it to be true, then I imagine it would be time to start looking at the Quo'ran for other scientific insights and tidbits as to what Allah wants. If Scientology amasses evidence proving that Xenu is real, then my eternity will be judged by a different rubric... but until there is evidence that any kind of consciousness of any sort can exist absent a living brain--I'll get my answers from the evidence that is the same for everybody... and not from something you are supposed to "believe" despite an utter lack of evidence.

So then... how do you imagine things would be different if evolution was a fact...how do you imagine you would come to know--and would you just presume that was the way your "intelligent designer" chose to bring humanity about on this little speck in the universe? To a scientists your beliefs and claims are as wacky as the beliefs and claims of Scientologists, astrologists, rain dancers, voo-doo practitioners etc. You are using the same arguments of some very discredited dishonest people that have the integrity of cult leaders.

And your delusions are as unfixable and as prone to error as those who believe that Allah wants them to punish Americans by flying planes into buildings and will reward them and their family for doing his will without question.

You're the only one thinking your belief systems makes you a more moral or better person, you know... and every believer thinks their beliefs are the right ones for the same reasons you do-- that's WHY I follow the evidence and not those who claim to have access to divine truths. Humans have been making up this crap for eons--and not an iota of evidence for anything divine or supernatural exists despite eons of such faith. Humanity's miracles all come from science and eons of accumulated data by mortals--none come from scriptures.

To me, you are an example of brainwashing by religion. You are the reason people should not inflict religion on children. You are the reason every school child must be taught critical thinking and the basics of evolution. You are the reason I feel disdain towards anyone who would obfuscate understanding. You may succeed in fooling yourself, but I don't think you are convincing anyone here of your beliefs or your claims.
 
Last edited:
rittjc said:
Creation has circumstantial evidence. Evolution claims you have to believe that Natural Selection is their evidence. If Natural Selection is always a destructive process, then why would they even float that as evidence of evolution's ability to create life forms?

That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I agree. How you just explained evolution makes no sense. That's why it doesn't work that way.


rittjc said:
You might as well postulate that a bomb is a creator of complexity. The both are saying the exact same thing, just to different degrees. Destructive processes are never constructive processes, that is simply a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...
You might have some Shivites who would disagee.
 
rittjc said:
Creation has circumstantial evidence. Evolution claims you have to believe that Natural Selection is their evidence. If Natural Selection is always a destructive process, then why would they even float that as evidence of evolution's ability to create life forms?

That makes no sense. You might as well postulate that a bomb is a creator of complexity. The both are saying the exact same thing, just to different degrees. Destructive processes are never constructive processes, that is simply a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...

No dear...evolution doesn't claim you have to believe anything. The only punishment for not understanding is ignorance and the only reward for understanding is useful information that humans can know for the first time in human history. Evolution is true whether you believe it or not just like the earth was spherical all those eons humans thought it was flat.

It's just that most people of average intelligence who have not been too brainwashed by religion, can readily understand evolution by understanding natural selection...hence the creationist desire to obfuscate understanding of this area by saying "scientists think this all came about randomly". They do not think that.

If you want to know what scientists think and what the evidence is, you have to have a tad of scientific literacy first...and it helps if you don't think your eternity depends on you believing the right unbelievable story...

But you don't want to know what scientists think unless you can use it to shore up your personal delusion...
 
rittjc said:
You are the first one I know that tries to tie external governance to evolution.
Click to expand...

No, you just aren't listening--you are repeating misleading information from poor sources you've come to trust. The environment selects the most successful replicators and they pass on their genes exponentially.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

Species don't evolve in their lifetimes... they just copy the info. inside of them--and those who make the most copies...are the best copiers...and the most likely to spawn new mutations that turn out to be beneficial.

Species change over time because of preferential survival of those with genomes that make them more likely to survive and reproduce.

The mutation was random... the fact that all the males now have that mutation is not.
 
rittjc said:
Again your accusations of Bush lying are as baseless as your evidence of evolution. Don't be hater. It doesn't push you toward truth. Clinton admitted he lied and there was evidence to support it. All you have are the same liberal talking points that have nothing but koolaid drinking paranoia and the belief that everything from the existence of trees to the global warming is a great conspiracy. Heck you people can't even get your story straight as to whether Bush is a bumbling idiot or a genius megalomaniac.

You sound like a bunch of people who have dropped too much acid and have lost control of their thought faculties.
Click to expand...

Um...WMD, Valerie Plame, he didn't know the levees would break, we'll be greeted as liberators...these are lies that cost lives you dolt. If I'm a hater--it's of ignorance and lies that cause the suffering of others.

You are the craziest, angriest, stupidest, creationist/religious-right member I have actually had the pleasure of provoking--almost Fred Phelpsish crazy... no wonder not even those who share some of your leanings want to associate with you. You are the incompetent one who doesn't realize he is the incompetent one in my sig link.

But I've provoked you enough. I guess you were upset by the facts showing that religiosity and failure to understand evolution is associated with higher rates of abortion, drug use, venereal disease, teen pregnancy, and homicide as well as Republicanism. Religion just doesn't seem to make anyone more moral after all--it just makes them think they are more moral than those who don't believe as they do. Sadly, every religion brainwashes their members with this meme. No wonder the faithful play semantic games and use emotions and invectives...what else is one to do when there are no facts in support of your favorite delusion? It must be really hard to be so stupid and yet desire to have others take you seriously, eh?

But, maybe if you are really lucky, you'll be able to laugh at your naive self one day thanks to a ray of light brought to you by the JREF forum. I doubt it--but maybe! The irony is amazing--you are so sure you have something to teach us all, but are so hugely ignorant of how much people here could actually teach you. We're kind of having a grown up discussion on this thread and you are the 5 year old crashing the party with a tantrum, ya' know?
 
Say, if any creationist ever actually shows up with evidence in support of whatever creation story it is they are proffering...someone be sure and tell me, okay-- because I've been waiting a long time... and just like Randi says about those he tests... it's the same old crap. There is just nothing new in the way of spin and the semantic games people go through to delude themselves.

It would be kinda cool--we could utilize the information just like we used evolution to map genomes and devise forensic tests and do genetic counseling and treat illnesses...We could figure out which religion had the right invisible entity with the correct rubric for living happily ever after--and, zowie,--that IS important. We'd know exactly who the infallible ones were...we could scientifically test them for infallibility and give the million dollars to the winner... Heck, if we know people live after they die...science should have no problem coming up with a way to communicate with these people and refine that communication... do retarded people stay retarded? Do demented and brain damaged people stay demented and brain damaged (of course...how can you be brain damaged without a brain)...

Think of how much humanity would appreciate the smallest of measurable evidence by the all loving overlord--something undeniable and not something you have to twist and interpret... a cool science fact that no human knows yet but could be readily verified maybe. Eons of belief--not a speck of evidence to show for all those years of assorted faith and worship.
 
Hokulele said:
Aaaaand in the interest of fairness, Politics is thataway. ->
Click to expand...

Okay, okay...but may I speak up in my defense, your honor...

It was in response to what he said, and I provided an on-topic link. Only 30% of Republicans accept evolution. That is sadly ignorant...and Turkey is the only country that has a lower acceptance rate than the US (of developed nations)--and that is due to Muslim fundamentalism.

I hate politics anyhow. I like my facts straight up, without spin.

Independents were the most likely to accept evolution...as are people in more secular societies--which showed greater societal health on multiple measures.
Acceptance of evolution strongly correlates with societal health and scientific ignorance strongly correlates with societal dysfunction. It seems that facts without spin (scientific literacy) have a protective effect on populations as a whole
 
Wings said:
How about I go one step further. To state that because something has any randomness in it can describe it as a random process is to committ the Fallacy of Composition. Just because it has a random component does not necessarily make it a random process.
Click to expand...

That's what led me to come up with the description of saying that a system is random if it is necessary to use probabilities to make predictions. Using that definition, we might ask if evolution and/or natural selection is random.

The answer depends on which predictions you are trying to make. There are some broad, general, conclusions you can reach about evolution without resorting to probability. On the other hand, if you want numerical detail, you need probability.

Will the species "rattus rattus" (the common rat) exist in the year 2100? I can't give a yes or no answer to that question, but I can say if it is likely to be alive, and if I create a model, I can say that my model predicts its survival with a probability of X%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom