Direction of Evolution

[Ophiolite]

"Billions of years" cannot reasonably cover this level of chance.

<snip> Again, billions of years simply cannot account for this.

Demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise all we have from you is an opinion.

To demonstrate that it is not the case I offer more than a century and a half of research providing in glorious, interlocked detail confirmation that it is possible.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I believe it has already been pointed out that words have often multiple meanings.

Sometimes, but it would be pointless to argue that two contrdictory meanings are true at the same time. I read the news paper (present tense). I read the news paper (past tense). The same word has two different meanings depending on the context, but they won't both be true at the same time.

This is why it makes no sense for you to talk about random control. They are opposing concepts.

You are choosing one here that fits your understanding of evolution, but that understanding appears to be faulty.

But you've not shown it to be faulty. In order to do so, you'd have to show how "randomness" and "control" can be consistent with one another. You can't do that because the whole point of having the two words in the first place is to show a distinction in concept. You're only saying it's faulty because it contradicts your own conclusions.

It is apparent that you do not understand evolution. I do not think I can rectify this in a couple of posts, especially when you seem to have a hostile attitude to considering alternatives.

I think what is more likely is that, just as has happened in Christianity, where people eventually move away from the originally intended purpose of various rules and teachings, so too do evolutionists move away from the originally intended meaning. In the case of your interpretation of evolution, I'd say you've moved away from the meaningless, randomness of what the theory is actually meant to teach, into an alternate version which does convey some meaning and purpose (which you interpret as control behind how we've come to be here today).

It's what I've been saying all along; evolutionists are created to crave meaning. A teaching which disregards any accountability to something greater than ourselves is very convenient. But, we invariably go back to craving meaning and purpose. The evolutionist does this by injecting teleological language into their theory and will argue all the day long that "control" doesn't mean intent, purpose or guidance at all.

It makes no sense unless it is a system used to get the purpose in life that we crave, without needing to be accountable to the source of that meaning.

I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me what I think and why I think it.

It's fine for me to have an opinion as to why you behave the way you do. It's not like I'm saying I know everything about you, but I do want to understand why you behave the way you do. I think my theory makes a lot of sense and I'm quite opening to having misunderstood your motivations, but you've not shown me any misunderstanding, yet. All you're doing is digging yourself in deeper by trying to explain that words like "control" and "influence" can be exercised randomly. For these things to be random would defeat the purpose of why we have the words in the first place.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Otherwise all we have from you is an opinion.

Huh, weird. Someone on the internet has an opinion. *eye roll*

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise all we have from you is an opinion.

Referring to post# 19, I can't prove or disprove what happened over billions of years, which is precisely why evolutionists always fall back on "billions of years" when they're backed into a corner.

Haha, the evolutionists favorite superhero, billions-of-years man, swooping down in times of ineffaceable pressure!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Good. So we are agreed that the rule is nonsense and that the researchers did not assert it.

(On the subject of misinterpretation I have a rule. If my words, verbal or written, are misunderstood I look to myself as the probable source of the misunderstanding. I encourage others to do likewise. [And I am aware of how one could 'misinterpret' that comment for a humorous put down.])

You make it sound as if my words were inadequate and open to misinterpretation. Do not blame others for your lack of comprehension. You chose to read into my words something which was not there and which I did not imply. You should, indeed, look to yourself and read more carefully.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

You chose to read into my words something which was not there and which I did not imply.

Yeah, that's what s/he was doing with my posts, too.

 

[sfs]

No matter how you try to define a process which is completely random, you will never find a definition which accurately does so, because we humans are created to crave and seek out purpose and meaning. You may program a set of virtual dice to always roll randomly, and in that sense you could have a "process which is random", but that would still be inaccurate because you first had to define or, "set within limits", the dice to behave randomly.

Again, words which imply meaning, purpose and intent are off limits to you when describing any theory which does not support purpose and meaning.

Irrelevant. Whether a process is random is independent of whether or not humans have a tendency to ascribe purpose to processes, and independent of whether human language tends to ascribe purpose. Your claim that no one is allowed to use words with any hint of purpose to describe a lack of purpose lacks any foundation in linguistics: we can use language in any way we choose, as long as it serves to communicate. You don't get to dictate how people use language.

You can't have it both ways, but you want to, because deep down you know you can't support a theory for how you came to be which has no purpose or meaning to it.

As it happens, I'm inclined to believe that there is meaning and purpose to evolution (what with being a Christian and all), but that has nothing at all to do with the meaning of "random" when it comes to evolution.

Stop stealing our language to give your own meaningless theory something more than it deserves. -_-

Where did you get the idea that you owned the language?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Irrelevant. Whether a process is random is independent of whether or not humans have a tendency to ascribe purpose to processes, and independent of whether human language tends to ascribe purpose. Your claim that no one is allowed to use words with any hint of purpose to describe a lack of purpose lacks any foundation in linguistics: we can use language in any way we choose, as long as it serves to communicate. You don't get to dictate how people use language.

To me, this looks like a case of personal bias showing. It's like you're saying, "Words have specific meanings? Irrelevant. I can use the words in any way I want, so long as I believe I am communicating something".

If the goal were communication, (as you describe it), then all we'd need is a stick to bang on something, once for yes and twice for no. We use words to refine the meaning we want to communicate. If we arbitrarily change the meaning of the words to suit whatever argument we want to promote, then "communication" loses its meaning, too.

So, what is evolution meant to communicate? How we came to be here without the need for any intelligence, purpose, or design behind it. That's it. That is the essence of evolution.

Perhaps you could argue that God is at work behind all the changes, but then that necessarily means the changes were not random; they happen as a result of intelligent design and therefore you would no longer be talking about evolution. You'd be talking about some other method for how we came to be here. Evolution is not consistent with Christianity. If you believe God is behind the various changes over billions of years (or whatever) then you need a different name for what you're describing, because calling it evolution will only cause confusion.

As for who owns the language, I'd suggest those who have the most desire to use it properly are those who have the most right to claim it as their own. Someone who says that randomness and guidance can be interchangeable is not being responsible with the language. They're only contributing to confusion. Communication, by definition, is not meant to lead to confusion.

 

[Ophiolite]

You make it sound as if my words were inadequate and open to misinterpretation.

Correct. Your words were inadequate and were misinterpreted. This was not a big deal. You are turning it into one.

If you will reflect for a moment it is the reader who gets to decide the clarity of the writing. Not the writer. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.

I welcome it when readers tell me something I have written is unclear or ambiguous. I regret you do not share this approach. To avoid this becoming silly and subject to moderation I am placing you on ignore for a week. If you feel compelled to address it further strike up a conversation, but let's not derail this thread further.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Correct. Your words were inadequate and were misinterpreted. This was not a big deal. You are turning it into one.

If you will reflect for a moment it is the reader who gets to decide the clarity of the writing. Not the writer. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.

I welcome it when readers tell me something I have written is unclear or ambiguous. I regret you do not share this approach. To avoid this becoming silly and subject to moderation I am placing you on ignore for a week. If you feel compelled to address it further strike up a conversation, but let's not derail this thread further.

You made a mistake and can't admit it, then resort to passive-aggressive threats of moderation. That says a lot about you.

You might also want to consider how you engage with other posters - you come across as extremely arrogant and condescending.

You may leave me on ignore as long as you like.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Correct. Your words were inadequate and were misinterpreted. This was not a big deal. You are turning it into one.

If you know you misinterpreted his words (even if it was because you thought them inadequate) can't you just say, "sorry about that"? Instead it looks like you think you have the right to misinterpret people's words if they don't adequately suit your point of view.

That's not debate. That's personal bias crushing anything and everything in its path.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...So, they didn't find one, single example of any evolutionary mutation which made the animal a little more simple, out of billions of examples over billions of years? Uh huh...

No, you need to read more carefully. Just to clarify, this is what they said:

“Sooner or later, however, you reach a level of complexity where it’s possible to go backwards and become simpler again.
“What’s astonishing is that hardly any crustaceans have taken this backwards route.”​

So, in general, when a certain level of complexity is reached, they do find creatures becoming simpler; but in crustaceans surprisingly few do appear to have done so.

The reason for this seems to be that the less complex crustaceans don't survive:

“Those crustacean groups going extinct tended to be less complex than the others around at the time,” said Dr Wills.​

Also, he emphasizes:

“the trend towards complexity is compelling but does not describe the history of all life.”​

The original paper abstract says this is a rare example:

"These results provide a rare demonstration of a large-scale and probably driven trend..."
​

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The reason for this seems to be that the less complex crustaceans don't survive:

But isn't this just another way of saying, "Organisms which get beneficial mutations survive". "More complex" is just a synonym for "more benefited from a particular mutation". That's what evolutionists have been saying since the theory became popular.

I guess I'm still missing the point of the argument.

 

[sfs]

To me, this looks like a case of personal bias showing. It's like you're saying, "Words have specific meanings? Irrelevant.

I've already pointed out that the specific meanings in question are standard ones for the words in question. You're the one who wants to restrict the meaning, based on some odd notions about how humans use words. The words "process" and "mechanism" do not necessarily imply purpose or intent to speakers of standard English. Your impression here is simply wrong.

If the goal were communication, (as you describe it), then all we'd need is a stick to bang on something, once for yes and twice for no. We use words to refine the meaning we want to communicate.

Um, huh? Refining meaning is part of communication.

So, what is evolution meant to communicate? How we came to be here without the need for any intelligence, purpose, or design behind it. That's it. That is the essence of evolution.

Sorry, but that's not the meaning of the word "evolution". At all. It's not remotely what I mean by it, and I study evolution for a living. Perhaps you should take to heart your own comments about trying to change the meaning of words.

Perhaps you could argue that God is at work behind all the changes, but then that necessarily means the changes were not random; they happen as a result of intelligent design and therefore you would no longer be talking about evolution.

That's not what "random" means in this context. To a scientist, "random" means having an unpredictable outcome. In the specific context of evolution, it means "random with respect to fitness", that is, that there is no mechanism by which an organism's need dictates which mutations occur. I am talking about evolution, I'm talking about random mutations -- in the sense that scientists use the term -- and those processes are completely consistent with a divine purpose for evolution.

Evolution is not consistent with Christianity.

Your statement is empirically false. Many, many Christians accept evolution as the physical means by which life's diversity has developed.

If you believe God is behind the various changes over billions of years (or whatever) then you need a different name for what you're describing, because calling it evolution will only cause confusion.

Perhaps if you listened to what other people were saying, rather than trying to dictate their language to them, you wouldn't be confused.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But isn't this just another way of saying, "Organisms which get beneficial mutations survive". "More complex" is just a synonym for "more benefited from a particular mutation". That's what evolutionists have been saying since the theory became popular.

I guess I'm still missing the point of the argument.

My point was simply to point out that maintaining or increasing complexity is not a 'rule' of evolution. It just happens to be particularly advantageous for crustaceans. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on the context. Sometimes a mutation can be both advantageous and disavantageous in different circumstances

 

[JackRT]

I've already pointed out that the specific meanings in question are standard ones for the words in question. You're the one who wants to restrict the meaning, based on some odd notions about how humans use words. The words "process" and "mechanism" do not necessarily imply purpose or intent to speakers of standard English. Your impression here is simply wrong.

Um, huh? Refining meaning is part of communication.

Sorry, but that's not the meaning of the word "evolution". At all. It's not remotely what I mean by it, and I study evolution for a living. Perhaps you should take to heart your own comments about trying to change the meaning of words.

That's not what "random" means in this context. To a scientist, "random" means having an unpredictable outcome. In the specific context of evolution, it means "random with respect to fitness", that is, that there is no mechanism by which an organism's need dictates which mutations occur. I am talking about evolution, I'm talking about random mutations -- in the sense that scientists use the term -- and those processes are completely consistent with a divine purpose for evolution.

Your statement is empirically false. Many, many Christians accept evolution as the physical means by which life's diversity has developed.

Perhaps if you listened to what other people were saying, rather than trying to dictate their language to them, you wouldn't be confused.

What an excellent reply. Speaking as a retired scientist in a different discipline, we also have to realize that in science words have very precisely defined meanings that can sometimes be quite different then when they are used by the man in the street. In certain aspects of physics, for example, he words 'work', 'energy' and 'power' are used quite differently
and would be quite confusing to someone without a science education.

 

[USincognito]

So, what is evolution meant to communicate? How we came to be here without the need for any intelligence, purpose, or design behind it. That's it. That is the essence of evolution.

Plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease; heck, even the weather forecast explains things without including intelligence, purpose or design. Do you have a similar problem with those things or is your umbrage limited to biology?

 

[USincognito]

An animal living in a desert climate may mutate a thick coat of fur. Of course it will die. If the same animal had lived in a cold climate, it probably would have lived. No selection to it. Only random chance according to the mutations.

Since you're such a fan of semantics, would you have less of a problem with natural selection if we referred to it as natural filtering?

 

[USincognito]

What are the non-random parts?

The selection/filtering process of the environment would be the biggest one. There's also certain physical limitations like how big a terrestrial insect could get before it's exoskeleton was too heavy to move. There are further limitations on how much mutation can occur in a gamete before offspring are non longer viable.

 

[USincognito]

This is one of the more interesting aspects of evolution; sexual reproduction. At some point, for every species which reproduces through sex, there had to be a mutation which facilitated the change from asexual to sexual.

This means that for every, single species which reproduces sexually, there had to be two mutations, one for the male and the other for the female, and these mutations would have needed to occur to organisms which lived in the same area and within a few years of one another. "Billions of years" cannot reasonably cover this level of chance.

And on top of this, most evolutionists will say the mutations are gradual, but the process of reproduction for most sexually reproducing animals isn't simple. The process contains several steps often involving multiple sets of organs working together. This isn't a gradual or small step. We're talking huge change involving several parts within the organism as a result of a single mutation? And this supposedly happened in every species, out of the millions that exist? Again, billions of years simply cannot account for this.

Gametes predate the split between plants and animals/fungi. Sexual reproduction has deep roots in the tree of life.

And it blows my mind how Creationists cannot grasp that evolution is a continuum and not a novel advent with each news species. The part of your post I have bolded in blue shows a dearth of biological knowledge. The vast majority of sexually reproducing beings (including plants, fungi, protists and most animals) reproduce externally so there is no need for "complimentary parts". Heck, a good number of vertebrates - fish and amphibians - also reproduce externally. Copulation is really limited to Amniotes and when you get to eutherian mammals, there really isn't that much difference between whale, zebra, lion, gorilla and human copulation.