Great New AronRa video, Evolution is a fact

[klaus54]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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.

[shunyadragon]

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]

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]

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]

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.