Direction of Evolution

[Speedwell]

Hello Ophiolite.

I wonder which way you are pointing?

There is no suspicion here that he is changing the definition of "random" arbitrarily to further the atheist agenda. The meaning of "random" in scientific discourse is well known and long established.

"Random: predictable by no known algorithm."
The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering Sokolnikov & Redheffer, 1958.

 

[klutedavid]

There is no suspicion here that he is changing the definition of "random" arbitrarily to further the atheist agenda. The meaning of "random" in scientific discourse is well known and long established.

"Random: predictable by no known algorithm."
The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering Sokolnikov & Redheffer, 1958.

Hello Speedwell.

Why would he use an alternate definition, what is there to gain?

 

[Speedwell]

Hello Speedwell.

Why would he use an alternate definition, what is there to gain?

Nothing. He is using the standard definition of "random" as it is used in the sciences.

 

[Ophiolite]

I wonder which way you are pointing?

As noted, the right direction. (Even though I am left leaning.)

 

[klutedavid]

As noted, the right direction. (Even though I am left leaning.)

Hello Ophiolate.

Can you demonstrate that mutations are truly random events?

 

[Ophiolite]

Hello Ophiolate.

Can you demonstrate that mutations are truly random events?

Not given your faulty definition of random. In the same way I cannot demonstrate that mutations are truly blue. When you are ready to accept the scientific definition of random then perhaps we can reengage.

 

[Jimmy D]

On the surface it sounds okay, but look deeper. Is Jimmy, an atheist, really saying he thinks religion brings meaning and purpose? Nah, of course not. If that were true he wouldn't be an atheist. So why did he say it? Isn't he damning religion through faint praise? Yep, of course he is. Otherwise he would have ended the sentence at "diversity of life on Earth".

But someone who fiercly wants the respect of his atheist buddies is unlikely to recognize it. These little comments can add up over time and even a sincere Christian can be worn down and eventually trained away from challenging them.

What a load of nonsense. Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I can't appreciate the value of it to others.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What a load of nonsense. Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I can't appreciate the value of it to others.

Ah, that's what you say. But remember: Endtime Survivors is an expert mind reader and he's clearly saying what you actually think.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hello Ophiolite.

All events are caused events, therefore there is pattern and predictability to all events. The word, 'random', describes a temporary phenomenon, in time all will be understood.

We understand how the lottery works, and it is still considered to be random.

 

[Loudmouth]

Excellent point. They've actually got it chopped up into three parts; the appearance of time/ space/ matter, then abiogenesis, then evolution of life; all nicely separated and confined to their independent little compartments. How convenient.

Do you reject the Germ Theory of Disease because it does not include abiogenesis or the Big Bang?

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand that you have specific examples of scientific, biological occurrences which lead you to a belief in the theory of evolution. I also suggested earlier that I recognized asking you to put those examples into simpler terms (so that people who don't specialize in such fields could understand them) would put you at a disadvantage, because it is within the language of how you define those examples where you find your most convincing evidence (i.e. Asking why humans and chimpanzee dna could be so similar doesn't quite have the same impact as presenting a percentage).

We could point to endogenous retroviruses. These are places in our genome where a virus is inserted, and we can still find the viral genome right where it inserted. These retroviruses insert randomly all over the genome which makes them useful as genetic markers.

If humans and chimps were created separately then we would expect to find these insertions at different places in each of the genomes due to the random nature of retroviral insertion. If you have two people drawing random numbers then you would expect them to have different sets of random numbers. The same logic applies to endogenous retroviruses.

However, what we find when we look at the human and chimp genomes is that out of the 203,000 endogenous retroviruses found in the human genome, over 99.9% of them are found at the same spot in the chimp genome. That is like two people drawing 200,000 random numbers and getting the same number 99.9% of the time. It won't happen.

The only explanation for these shared endogenous retroviruses is that they inserted once, in a common ancestor. That is why we find them at the same position in both the human and chimp genome.

The fundamental purpose of evolution is to explain change without any need for intelligence behind it.

Can I call you justlookinla? Anyway . . .

The fundamental purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain the observations. Period. It isn't the fault of science or scientists that there are no observations consistent with intelligent design.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I read somewhere online that a eukaryote once lost its nucleus (iirc) and turned back in to a prokaryote.ie less complexity evolved.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I read somewhere online that a eukaryote once lost its nucleus (iirc) and turned back in to a prokaryote.ie less complexity evolved.

-_- nonsense; there are eukaryotic cells without nuclei, such as red blood cells, but it is more than a nucleus which distinguishes the cell types. Most of the organelles present in eukaryotic cells, such as mitochondria, are absent in prokaryotic cells. Heck, the shape of DNA in prokaryotes is a ring, while in eukaryotes it is linear. There is also no selective pressure that would push a eukaryotic cell to become more like a prokaryotic cell, as this would eliminate the most productive sources of energy that cell type has.

 

[xianghua]

Because they are seriously cute. Would love to play with one someday. Thanks for the pleasant reminder.

actually not every sceintists agree that those are realy viral infactions. we know for example that a lot of ervs parts are functional. so they may be indeed the result of design and not evolution.

 

[dickyh995]

actually not every sceintists agree that those are realy viral infactions. we know for example that a lot of ervs parts are functional. so they may be indeed the result of design and not evolution.

Source?

 

[xianghua]

Source?

here for instance:

Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable

"The progressive, or escape, hypothesis states that viruses arose from genetic elements that gained the ability to move between cells"

 

[dickyh995]

here for instance:

Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable

"The progressive, or escape, hypothesis states that viruses arose from genetic elements that gained the ability to move between cells"

I see nothing in that article to indicate design?

 

[xianghua]

I see nothing in that article to indicate design?

who is talked about design? we talked about the origin of viruses.

 

[dickyh995]

actually not every sceintists agree that those are realy viral infactions. we know for example that a lot of ervs parts are functional. so they may be indeed the result of design and not evolution.

I see nothing in that article to indicate design?

Maybe we've got confused...I asked for a source to back your claim above that ERVs may be the result of design and not evolution but you posted a link to an article about the possible origins of viruses.

 

[xianghua]

Maybe we've got confused...I asked for a source to back your claim above that ERVs may be the result of design and not evolution but you posted a link to an article about the possible origins of viruses.

i gave evidences for the claim that those ervs arent the product of viral infections. so its indeed support the claim that those ervs are an integral part of the genome. if you want evidence for design i can give you some.