The non-random part of the process is natural selection.
Even natural selection can be random. Selective forces in a region can change.
Upvote
0
The non-random part of the process is natural selection.
It's random in the sense that it is stochastic. A given selection pressure may affect individuals within its scope (i.e. the relatively less fit for that criterion) at random, but its effect on the population as a whole is not random because it affects only those individuals within its scope.Even natural selection can be random.
Yes, changing selection criteria will drive evolution in correspondingly new directions.Selective forces in a region can change.
It's random in the sense that it is stochastic. A given selection pressure may affect individuals within its scope (i.e. the relatively less fit for that criterion) at random, but its effect on the population as a whole is not random because it affects only those individuals within its scope.
Yes, changing selection criteria will drive evolution in correspondingly new directions.
Are you suggesting that a mutation knows what base pair to occur in?
Even natural selection can be random. Selective forces in a region can change.
Just about every natural process has "random" forces/parameters involved in it.Now we agree evolutionism works on a second principle of randomness.
There are lots of everyday process that involve random events which sum to consistent and predictable results - for example, in radioactive decay the time before a particular atom decays is random, but for a bulk of that element, the time it takes for half the atoms to decay is a constant and distinctive fingerprint value.Now we agree evolutionism works on a second principle of randomness.
Reason being that this spine evolved to walk on all 4s, not for bipedalism.
It's just a question of understanding, which requires a little knowledge. Check out some comparative anatomy of the human skeleton with other mammals, especially other primates.This is a serious problem. I asked you who deemed that as a fact before you answered but got nothing unless I missed it. And you do speak as if that *is* a fact, when it most certainly is not....It's at best an assumption, and not designed to explain fact but help further a made up evolution, or bologna to help back up bologna.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.Read it again. God told the earth to bring forth the critters. He did not create them Himself. That's why the limitations are in place.
Evolution is random for some theorists. If it is not random for you, then what
was the cause of the non-randomness?
This is a serious problem. I asked you who deemed that as a fact before you answered but got nothing unless I missed it. And you do speak as if that *is* a fact, when it most certainly is not....
It's at best an assumption
, and not designed to explain fact but help further a made up evolution, or bologna to help back up bologna.
How many of you got into believing evolution by being so gullible that you just buy something like is presented here on the spine, and without question?
Your opinion is noted.I suspect many either buy things like that or they think to themselves...."Well, maybe that particular thing there is wrong, who knows, but they have so much other evidence that evolution MUST be true"
If you are one of those, don't you get it? don't you see that ALL of their so-called evidence is just like that
I have no emotional attachments to any scientific theory about anything., so having tons of it, amounts to no evidence at all, but it makes for a good delusion for those that aren't paying attention, or would rather believe in evolution for whatever reason.
Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?I been told by creationists that life is diverse because the creator loves diversity, so why did not the creator create 6-legged dogs?
The sense is that the earth made the creature, and God fine-tuned it so that it could reproduce.And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Why don't we see birds with wings and arms then?Let me suggest that earth did in fact bring forth such critters, and they did not live to create offspring. The skeleton was unsuitable, as mammal diversification requires ability to separate upper and lower body movements. Such insects use all their legs together, on each side, and they do not have an internal skeleton, which is how the legs can move together. The requirement that larger creatures be able to find larger amounts of food demanded that the limbs be able to perform more than one function (like running after it, and then holding it for the teeth.)
Whether you believe in evolution or creation, you must believe that any creature that is not fit to survive, dies. The difference is whether such creatures happened because of God's command, or at random.
Yeah, you guys are perfectly happy to just make stuff up and pretend it has a basis in fact.Yes, you can only speculate.
Creationists don't have to.
No he isn't. How did you decide that was a question worth posing?Are you suggesting that a mutation knows what base pair to occur in?
As mentioned, God chose not to make six legged dogs...just that simple.
It's just a question of understanding, which requires a little knowledge. Check out some comparative anatomy of the human skeleton with other mammals, especially other primates.
I suspect you won't, but you should be able to read a wikipedia article on it: Skeletal Changes Due To Bipedalism. For a single paragraph summary of the implications, see Bipedalism - Significance.
And there's Creationism in a nutshell again - just make stuff up.