What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Rodney]

Um...WMD, Valerie Plame, he didn't know the levees would break, we'll be greeted as liberators...these are lies . . .

1) No less an authority than John Kerry believed that Iraq had WMD.

2) Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative (and Joseph Wilson's spouse) was revealed to Bob Woodward and Bob Novak by Iraq war opponent Richard Armitage.

3) Knowledgeable people were well aware that New Orleans would flood in a major hurricane; I'm unaware of anyone who "knew" that the levees would break.

4) A number of people opined that the Iraqi people would greet the Allied Coalition as liberators.

So, what lies are you referring to?

 

[Wings]

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?

Random and non-random already mean many things as it is, they are both ambigious words. What I am trying to say is that while evolution does satisfy some meanings of random, it does not satisfy other meanings. In the same way, evolution satisfies some meanings for non-random, but not others.

They are using non-random to emphasis natural selection.

Technically, random and non-random are both words that can apply to evolution, but if someone were to say that evolution is random, they create the wrong mental image. This is how people get the idea of the "747 in the junkyard" even though it is not nearly an accurate picture of evolution, because it ignores natural selection.

They are using non-random to emphasis the natural selection factor within the evolutionary theory. It is not a completely accurate word to use, but in a choice between saying it is random or non-random, non-random presents a more accurate image of evolution, even if both words do contain some meanings that do not match up with the properties of the evolutionary theory.

 

[Wings]

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%.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, to be honest. My position right now is that both words are too ambigious and thus attract controversy, I'm slightly more comfortable with non-random, but that's simply because random as the general public considers the word, gives the impression of the "747 in the junkyard" image.

Even if we were to say that random means that a system necessarily needs to use probabilities to make predictions, it would still be ignoring the natural selection aspect of evolution and would not be providing an accurate idea of what evolution is.

In the same way, to say evolution is non-random because of natural selection ignores the random components within evolution.

In short, I suppose for me it boils down to both terms being bad for representing what evolution is, but non-random is slightly better because the general idea of what random means is the "747 in the junkyard" misrepresentation. Even though both terms convey certain aspects of evolution, the common ideas of what random mean are in conflict with what random really means in the context of evolutionary theory.

In very short, creationists / IDers hijacked random with the 747 examples, so scientists emphasis natural selection by stating it's non-random.

 

[rittjc]

Please provide an example of this evidence.

The laws of physics claim the physical realm cannot create itself so something outside the realm of physics must have created this dimension and could not be physical itself or it is not the creator of the physical.

The physical realm has a beginning and an end. Simple logic would have you evolutionists put in the slammer if this were evidence in a criminal trial. In the absence of physical evidence circumstantial evidence is quite convincing. Most cases are solved primarily because of circumstantial evidence.

But the evolutionist try to use a destructive process to define their progression of order. Natural Selection is destructive. That would be like setting a small plane on fire and expecting a Space Shuttle to come from the destructive process of burning.

 

[articulett]

1) No less an authority than John Kerry believed that Iraq had WMD.

2) Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative (and Joseph Wilson's spouse) was revealed to Bob Woodward and Bob Novak by Iraq war opponent Richard Armitage.

3) Knowledgeable people were well aware that New Orleans would flood in a major hurricane; I'm unaware of anyone who "knew" that the levees would break.

4) A number of people opined that the Iraqi people would greet the Allied Coalition as liberators.

So, what lies are you referring to?

It's not the forum... but yes, lots of people thought there were WMDs...because we didnt' understand how willing our president was to lie...and he's on tape after Katrina saying he didn't know the levees would break-- .... and then video tape surfaces when he was told just that...and he offered his prayers... talking with hardcore republicans is the same as talking to creationists as far as I'm concerned...they just deny all evidence that doesn't fit the view they want while exaggerating the misdeeds of those who belong to other parties...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2006/03/02/foreman.fema.tape.cnn
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/white-house-plame-leak/
http://www.bushlies.net/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5jiHT3zdFc&mode=related&search=

Go pledge your allegiances elsewhere. This administration is the most anti-science administration we have had to date and America has been slipping in both math and the sciences since he took office and inflicted his faith based policies on Americans at tax payer expense...

And if you didn't know about the hurricane Katrina, perhaps it's your news source and your politics that kept you in the dark.. http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/15-07/st_infoporn

Getting back on topic, how would you answer the OP?

 

[joobz]

The laws of physics claim the physical realm cannot create itself so something outside the realm of physics must have created this dimension and could not be physical itself or it is not the creator of the physical.

which laws of physics?

 

[articulett]

The laws of physics claim the physical realm cannot create itself so something outside the realm of physics must have created this dimension and could not be physical itself or it is not the creator of the physical.

The physical realm has a beginning and an end. Simple logic would have you evolutionists put in the slammer if this were evidence in a criminal trial. In the absence of physical evidence circumstantial evidence is quite convincing. Most cases are solved primarily because of circumstantial evidence.

But the evolutionist try to use a destructive process to define their progression of order. Natural Selection is destructive. That would be like setting a small plane on fire and expecting a Space Shuttle to come from the destructive process of burning.

Actually, I think your overlord would be put in the slammer for impregnating a virgin without her consent, conspiracy to commit premeditated murder, conspiracy to solicit the murder of another...lots of others actually...bribery...cruel and unusual punishment...abuse of power...

Thankfully, we've evolved and intelligent people don't need to resort to fairy tales to explain things like tornadoes, reproduction, inheritance, epilepsy, or anything else. We no longer have to sacrifice people to volcano gods thanks to science...but some peoples' minds remain infected with the memes from youth.

 

[articulett]

which laws of physics?

come now... you know...those sciency laws that creationists use to try and sound like they know what they are talking about...

Remember...creationists don't know that the earth is plugged into a power source outside of itself...so they think it's a "closed system" -- don't tell me you haven't heard this idiotic canard before--?

 

[Wings]

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but I'm going to put my position on the floor.

Even if I know what a word technically means, if the general public gets the impression that random means something like the "747 in the junkyard" example, to state that evolution is random - even if technically correct because it does fulfill some meanings of random - promotes the wrong impression of what evolution means.

What matters more. What you think random means, or what the general public and people who you talk to thinks it means? Non-random is better because it does not promote the fallicious idea of the 747 in the junkyard nonsense. Even if both terms are technically correct, because evolution has random and non-random components, non-random is better because it does not promote the impression that the 747 example is valid, while using random does.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The laws of physics claim the physical realm cannot create itself so something outside the realm of physics must have created this dimension and could not be physical itself or it is not the creator of the physical.

The laws of physics do not state that the universe has to have been created at any point. You are using a very limited concept of space-time. Current understanding points physicists to a universe in which space-time is self contained, infinite and finite like the surface of a sphere.

The physical realm has a beginning and an end. Simple logic would have you evolutionists put in the slammer if this were evidence in a criminal trial. In the absence of physical evidence circumstantial evidence is quite convincing. Most cases are solved primarily because of circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps if you actually studied any physics post Newton you might understand why your first sentence in the above paragraph is far from self evident. Have you looked over those experimental verifications of Special Relativity yet? Care to comment on them?

But the evolutionist try to use a destructive process to define their progression of order. Natural Selection is destructive. That would be like setting a small plane on fire and expecting a Space Shuttle to come from the destructive process of burning.

That is about the most invalid, inaccurate analogy for natural selection I've ever encountered. Here's how it actually works:

Natural selection means that those organisms better equipped to survive to reproduce will leave more copies of themselves in subsequent generations. Those less well equipped to survive and reproduce will leave fewer copies of themselves in subsequent generations. The destructive element that you refer to is selective. It tends to destroy genes that lead to less reproductive success. It tends to preserve genes that lead to greater reproductive success.

Your analogy only works if the environment tends to destroy all members of a population (this does happen sometimes, causing extinctions). But in an environment where individuals are either destroyed or preserved based on their suitability for said environment your analogy is not an accurate representation of the mechanics of natural selection.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but I'm going to put my position on the floor.

Even if I know what a word technically means, if the general public gets the impression that random means something like the "747 in the junkyard" example, to state that evolution is random - even if technically correct because it does fulfill some meanings of random - promotes the wrong impression of what evolution means.

What matters more. What you think random means, or what the general public and people who you talk to thinks it means? Non-random is better because it does not promote the fallicious idea of the 747 in the junkyard nonsense. Even if both terms are technically correct, because evolution has random and non-random components, non-random is better because it does not promote the impression that the 747 example is valid, while using random does.

If I remember correctly, Dawkins stated that natural selection is not random. This is not the same as saying evolution is random. The random element of evolutionary theory is gene mutation. But the selective element is what drives evolution. So when he said that natural selection is not random he was making an accurate statement.

 

[Wings]

I agree, natural selection is not random. That's why I feel non-random is the better term to use when discussing whether evolution is random or non-random, because saying it is random, as understood by the general public, would create a very different mental image than what evolution really is, even if evolution does have random elements within it.

Not to mention that random in the sense that the general public understands it, is different than how it is understood technically.

Of course, I would rather not use either term, they are both ambigious. It would be better to use direct non-ambigous terms to define the various properties within the evolutionary theory. That's what I plan to do as I continue reading on evolution and try to understand it.

 

[g4macdad]

Dogs.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have to say almost because I can't prove all do. That's not practical.

Ok, lets say they are. I will be generous and say 1 in 1000 are beneficial.

So then we have to also factor in how many didn't mutate in that same generation. I will be generous there too and say 1 in 1000 mutate for the simplicity.

So we theorize that of the .01% that have the random change 99.99% die. Of those that survive, .01% must mutate for another change. Remember, you need trillions of changes to get the job done.

Trillions? I don't think trillions.

Of course, I don't really know, but then again, neither do you. So, the math in the rest of your post doesn't mean much. No one really knows how many mutations are needed to get from one species to another, although we can make a few educated guesses by looking at the differences between the DNA of two different species, which at least gives us a lower bound on the number of things that have to be changed.

Either way, regardless of specific numbers, you still have a problem. You forgot that the mutated ones reproduce, and pass along that beneficial mutation. If you redo the math that way, the numbers look better for our side.

 

[rittjc]

Random and non-random already mean many things as it is, they are both ambigious words. What I am trying to say is that while evolution does satisfy some meanings of random, it does not satisfy other meanings. In the same way, evolution satisfies some meanings for non-random, but not others.

They are using non-random to emphasis natural selection.

Technically, random and non-random are both words that can apply to evolution, but if someone were to say that evolution is random, they create the wrong mental image. This is how people get the idea of the "747 in the junkyard" even though it is not nearly an accurate picture of evolution, because it ignores natural selection.

They are using non-random to emphasis the natural selection factor within the evolutionary theory. It is not a completely accurate word to use, but in a choice between saying it is random or non-random, non-random presents a more accurate image of evolution, even if both words do contain some meanings that do not match up with the properties of the evolutionary theory.

But to use non-random you are effectively saying there is an established repeatable pattern. You can't do that without intelligence. Evolutionist always have their hat out as beggars wanting a free handout. They want givens. They want complete mechanisms preexisting to support Natural Selection as their main mechanism. Obviously Natural Selection would have to be an advanced mechanism. So why do they need a boost?

Truth doesn't need help. It doesn't need boosts. It doesn't need free givens, black boxes, and literal magic that you just have to accept to get them started.
How to become a millionaire:
1) First, get a million dollars
2) ...now the evolutionist's explanation of how to become a millionaire begins...

What is wrong with that picture? Right. Same thing with Natural Selection.

The analogy of the 747 from the junk yard is to illustrate to the mind the magnitude of absurdity of the very concept of random evolution. It is impossible to use the complexity of living organisms as a comparison because it so unspeakably complex that your brain could handle it no more than it can handle a complete understanding of infinity. So, you have to "dumb it down" to an infinitely less complex comparison because it is something the mind can conceive of. We know the complexity of a 747. (well some of us do) It is something we can comprehend even though it is tremendous. Of course lifeforms are so much more complex it is almost insulting to make the comparison but it is so important that the creationist must do it, otherwise we lose you in the turn.

Dumbing down the complexity of life is a "must do" for an evolutionist. The complex cell is effectively back go "goop" to make their process believable. When they are recruiting you they cannot afford you to comprehend the level of absurdity their religion pushes as a logical and common occurrence. An evolutionist is extremely passionate about his religion. If we don't stop them, they will one day be trying to burn people at the stake like the middle age church of Rome. Men are men. They will do anything for control.

But the highest form of ridiculousness is that they want you to believe a destructive process like natural selection is a good mechanism to explain their religious idea of "crap just happens". How does one get the creation of lifeforms from the process of destroying them? It really isn't hard to see through it. It is just that most all evolutionists cannot endure introspect or having their religion questioned.

In a way evolution is an insult to your intelligence but some people eat it up. Of course I believe this is because the evolutionists have been able to keep all critical thinking, scientific process and exposure of their foolish ideas out of the way of school students where they indoctrinate them. They indoctrinated me with it for 25 years. I was an Atheist evolutionist. But like all evolutionists, I didn't really have an idea how evolution could have worked. Details are unimportant. I just accepted the illogical Natural Selection explanation, not knowing it contradicted the very premise they base their religion on. Their god is simply mother earth. Just listen to them. They have named her. They have turned their religion into a theism by naming their god.

In school you get absurd drawings of how the monkey progresses to a man. Yet now the evolutionists say we are not from apes but instead we are straight from primates and the apes are straight from the mythical primate/unicorn too. Amazing how this mythical unseen creature called primate that can become man or can become ape depending on random eternal affects (I guess) looks exactly like an ape man in their drawings. Evolution is supposedly still going on but the orders have mysteriously disappeared from everything including the fossil record. Perhaps this is what the aliens in the UFO are after. The proof of evolution. Amazing the level of magic involved. Syliva Brown would not be so bold as to make that level of baseless claim.

I eventually got tired of drawings and magic processes. I gave in to real science and let the pseudosciences fall to the wayside.

 

[Meadmaker]

In my opinion, it would seem to me that the reason why scientists say that evolution is "non-random" is not because non-random is any better a term objectively, but because saying it is "random" conveys the imagery of the 747 in the junkyard example.

There's no doubt that there is truth to that, but I don't think it's a complete explanation.

For one thing, it has the form of, "If we say this they will think that so even though this is true we can't say it because they might think we said something else."

To my way of thinking, they aren't going to be convinced just because we happen to be right, so we might as well say whatever happens to be objectively better, and not worry all that much about what they think.


The interesting phenomenon, to me, is that one term really isn't any better than the other, but either one might be better in a specific context. Despite that, people from Dawkins to articulett get pretty darned hyped up about the subject. Why? Like Schneibster has been saying, whatever the reason, it isn't about science.

 

[Meadmaker]

What matters more. What you think random means, or what the general public and people who you talk to thinks it means?

What if I'm not talking to the general public?

 

[rittjc]

Trillions? I don't think trillions.

Of course, I don't really know, but then again, neither do you. So, the math in the rest of your post doesn't mean much. No one really knows how many mutations are needed to get from one species to another, although we can make a few educated guesses by looking at the differences between the DNA of two different species, which at least gives us a lower bound on the number of things that have to be changed.

Either way, regardless of specific numbers, you still have a problem. You forgot that the mutated ones reproduce, and pass along that beneficial mutation. If you redo the math that way, the numbers look better for our side.

Trillions was an attempt to throw you a bone. If not trillions the numbers decay to nothing in a much faster fashion. Perhaps in the 2nd or 3rd generation.

My math was exaggerated to give evolution a chance. Of course such numbers don't exist, and .01% of genes do not mutate or you would see people with legs growing out of their necks all over the place.

You don't have a majority of mutants, and occasionally one normal creature. But the concepts of evolution would have you believe that every bad mutation would die right off the back and you would never see them.

No tap dancing on the carpet please.

 

[Wings]

There's no doubt that there is truth to that, but I don't think it's a complete explanation.

For one thing, it has the form of, "If we say this they will think that so even though this is true we can't say it because they might think we said something else."

To my way of thinking, they aren't going to be convinced just because we happen to be right, so we might as well say whatever happens to be objectively better, and not worry all that much about what they think.


The interesting phenomenon, to me, is that one term really isn't any better than the other, but either one might be better in a specific context. Despite that, people from Dawkins to articulett get pretty darned hyped up about the subject. Why? Like Schneibster has been saying, whatever the reason, it isn't about science.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I mean, I do feel that both terms are misleading. That's simply my assumption as to the reasoning why they would use non-random.

Of course, I'm sure there's more to it than simply that they use non-random because the general idea on random is the opposite of what occurs in evolution due to natural selection. I probably have some incorrect ideas on this, but perhaps I can get a better understanding as I continue studying.

 

[rittjc]

If I remember correctly, Dawkins stated that natural selection is not random. This is not the same as saying evolution is random. The random element of evolutionary theory is gene mutation. But the selective element is what drives evolution. So when he said that natural selection is not random he was making an accurate statement.

Oh, well, if Richard Dawkins said it, that settles it for me. Good thing he didn't claim the world was flat. I would hate having to believe in his philosophies and tell everyone the world is flat.

Who is Richard Dawkins? Another evolutionist demagogue? Is he not just a man with an opinion? Screw Richard Dawkins and the horse he rode in on. He just preached his personal religion. Do you want to invoke Christian religious preachers and let their word be a settling factor?

Hold the man worship please, it is quite embarrassing.