Great New AronRa video, Evolution is a fact

[Roy]

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]

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.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

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.

© Copyright Original Source

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Try again in a couple of years, Santa Klaus.

Jorge

[seer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?