Evolution via random mutations is impossible

[Brightmoon]

Hovind is an ignorant moron . planets and moons spin backwards because they were knocked into those rotations by moonlets and asteroids hitting them. He tries to make his hypothetical scientist look stupid when a first year astronomy student could have answered most of those

 

[SkyWriting]

I have re-read my post that you quoted and read your reply, and I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Can you please explain.

Becasue nothing is random, then it cannot be
used as an explanation for anything.

At least not till you get the the quantum level of existence.
Then things get weird.

 

[SkyWriting]

Random means simply "predictable by no known algorithm*" and many phenomena fit that description.

*Sokolnikov & Redheffer, The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering (a standard handbook in my day).

Which ones?
Becasue a girlfriend of mine who's father
investigated engineering failure in airline crashes
said there was no such thing.

 

[NBB]

'Random mutation', reminds me of this thing in computing: Garbage in garbage out, you can't get a biological machine like the human body from random changes.
And don't tell me evolution isn't random because, listen, the source of change it is random! even if there something else at work like natural selection.

 

[Speedwell]

Which ones?

Flip a coin.

Becasue a girlfriend of mine who's father
investigated engineering failure in airline crashes
said there was no such thing.

That's quite an authoritative source. You don't even know what he meant by "random." Did he mean "unplanned" or "uncaused?" Or was he using the scientific definition?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Flip a coin.
That's quite an authoritative source. You don't even know what he meant by "random." Did he mean "unplanned" or "uncaused?" Or was he using the scientific definition?

Well we know life isn't caused by random mutations then if we follow the scientific definition of randomness, since they claim both a pattern and predictability in the overall scheme.

I just love this example they always give.

"For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy."

Lets see. 4 can only be obtained by 1 & 3 or 2 & 2.

But 7 can be obtained by 4 & 3, 5 and 2, or 6 and 1. So seven is expected to occur more often than 4. I can predict with certainty that 7 will occur more times than 4.

 

[Speedwell]

Well we know life isn't caused by random mutations then if we follow the scientific definition of randomness, since they claim both a pattern and predictability in the overall scheme.

I just love this example they always give.

"For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy."

Lets see. 4 can only be obtained by 1 & 3 or 2 & 2.

But 7 can be obtained by 4 & 3, 5 and 2, or 6 and 1. So seven is expected to occur more often than 4. I can predict with certainty that 7 will occur more times than 4.

Can you predict what the next roll will be? That's the point.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you predict what the next roll will be? That's the point.

But a random process does not have the odds of seven being more available than 4. In a random process the odds of each occurring would be exactly the same. With dice the odds of 7 happening more than 4 is not random.

Now take T, C, G and A. The odds that any one if placed in a new order will create a functioning code is no greater than any other. The odds that it will then function in cooperation with other existing codes increases. Even switching one letter is totally random. Even with statistical analysis unlike 4 and 7, one has no greater chance of success.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well we know life isn't caused by random mutations then if we follow the scientific definition of randomness, since they claim both a pattern and predictability in the overall scheme.

I just love this example they always give.

"For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy."

Lets see. 4 can only be obtained by 1 & 3 or 2 & 2.

But 7 can be obtained by 4 & 3, 5 and 2, or 6 and 1. So seven is expected to occur more often than 4. I can predict with certainty that 7 will occur more times than 4.

-Meaning-
When you examine the forces involved, then you can predict
the roll of a die 100% of the time. That was pretty close
to her example.

 

[SkyWriting]

Random means simply "predictable by no known algorithm*" and many phenomena fit that description.

*Sokolnikov & Redheffer, The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering (a standard handbook in my day).

A list please.

 

[NBB]

But why the outcome needs to resemble what we know animals and humans in such a way? it can be anything, i say nothing actually because random changes can't construct anything.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But why the outcome needs to resemble what we know animals and humans in such a way? it can be anything, i say nothing actually because random changes can't construct anything.

Why they think it would create even the complex single celled organism is useless conjecture, let alone man.

The outcome resembles what we see today not because their is any prediction that this is the outcome, but because that is what we see.

They need it to be so, so therefore it is....

You might as well believe that if I took all the parts that make up a mechanical watch, place them in a box and shook the box, that eventually I would get a fully functioning watch capable of keeping accurate time.

Well, they can believe that if they like, but I'll pass......

 

[Speedwell]

You might as well believe that if I took all the parts that make up a mechanical watch, place them in a box and shook the box, that eventually I would get a fully functioning watch capable of keeping accurate time.

Do you actually believe that is analogous to evolution, or are you just lying?

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, they can believe that if they like, but I'll pass......

Just remind us of an alternative again.

 

[Ophiolite]

A list please.

Your the one with a degree in Librarianship, who claims to be adept at researching material. I'm sure you can provide your own within minutes. Or do you describe to the notion that what you don't believe in is invisible?

Did I just see a naked Emperor pass by?

 

[SkyWriting]

Your the one with a degree in Librarianship, who claims to be adept at researching material. I'm sure you can provide your own within minutes. Or do you describe to the notion that what you don't believe in is invisible?

Did I just see a naked Emperor pass by?

I already said, outside of quantum particles, nothing is random.
So there is no list of random anything.
People are ignorant.....and that's what we call "random."
But random does not exist.

 

[Ophiolite]

I already said, outside of quantum particles, nothing is random.
So there is no list of random anything.

And there goes the Emperor.

 

[SkyWriting]

And there goes the Emperor.

That was my initial claim that "random" does not exist.
I've rechecked the topic many times.

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you predict what the next roll will be? That's the point.

If you know the forces involved...then 100% of the time.

 

[Brightmoon]

You can’t predict the outcome of a dice roll but the results are constrained to a few outcomes. There are three ways to get 4 and six ways to get a 7 with 2 dice