Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

justlookinla said:

Well, first, no one has offered evidence for the form of evolution which teaches that humanity is the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting an an alleged life form of long long ago. That causes no small amount of consternation among those who embrace such a view and will sometimes result in responses of mockery, such as yours.

While mockery may give you a certain amount of personal pleasure, it offers no substance concerning the various forms of evolution.

Click to expand...

well no one has provided evidence for that because thats not evolution, how can you expect to accept evidence if you can't even define evolution properly.

Random, it's not even remotly random, natural seelection weeds out probloematic mutations, and builds on neutral or beneficial mutations, considering every human has at least 150 mutations from their parents there is alot of room to work on.

Mindless, just as pretty much all of physics, chemistry it's mindless, purpossless too, doesn't mean god didn't create the process at the start, but it doesn't nescarily need a goal.

And it's not life long ago it's life, now, in the present and the future.

And on the subject of abiogenesis since you seem to imply it, god could and probably built into the system that chemistry would be all that was needed. if Abiogenesis is correct, it's all chemistry, and the opposite of Random. the right number of each chemical in a cup could be random, but any chemist knows that what happens isn't random. It's not random that Hydrogen and oxygn magically form water in the right conditions, any more then formation of RNA, and DNA and such would be random. God could easily have built into the chemistry of our universe the ability to form complex life from simple processes.

loveofourlord said:

well no one has provided evidence for that because thats not evolution, how can you expect to accept evidence if you can't even define evolution properly.

Click to expand...

That's one of the several views of evolution.

Random, it's not even remotly random, natural seelection weeds out probloematic mutations, and builds on neutral or beneficial mutations, considering every human has at least 150 mutations from their parents there is alot of room to work on.

Click to expand...

Random mutation is the only naturalistic mechanism which produces changed life forms, nothing else. Natural selection only acts on those new life forms.

Mindless, just as pretty much all of physics, chemistry it's mindless, purpossless too, doesn't mean god didn't create the process at the start, but it doesn't nescarily need a goal.

Click to expand...

Mindless in the sense there was no intelligence in the creation of humanity from the alleged single life form.

And it's not life long ago it's life, now, in the present and the future.

Click to expand...

The alleged single life form lived quite a while ago according to the view.

And on the subject of abiogenesis since you seem to imply it, god could and probably built into the system that chemistry would be all that was needed. if Abiogenesis is correct, it's all chemistry, and the opposite of Random. the right number of each chemical in a cup could be random, but any chemist knows that what happens isn't random. It's not random that Hydrogen and oxygn magically form water in the right conditions, any more then formation of RNA, and DNA and such would be random. God could easily have built into the chemistry of our universe the ability to form complex life from simple processes.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not mixing abiogenesis in with the particular view of evolution we're discussing.

justlookinla said:

That's one of the several views of evolution.



Random mutation is the only naturalistic mechanism which produces changed life forms, nothing else. Natural selection only acts on those new life forms.



Mindless in the sense there was no intelligence in the creation of humanity from the alleged single life form.



The alleged single life form lived quite a while ago according to the view.



No, I'm not mixing abiogenesis in with the particular view of evolution we're discussing.

Click to expand...

Random mutation only acts, but it's not random that a fin turns into a leg, becauuse they provide some form of advantage over it's predecesors, the mutations just provide the new form that antural selection can work on.

Yes evolution is mindless and without a goal, but doesn't mean the creator didn't have a goal. With billions of planets, and such it's not hard to see god planning for life to form somewhere and eventually reach our level, humans were just the result.

Maybe it's the gamer in me, but to me a game like No Mans Sky where what forms is 'random' but there is a set sort of goal is more fun then creating a planet with set life, it's seeing what forms thats fun.

Yes the single life form lived long ago, but that doesn't change it's all a long process.

Oncedeceived said:

How would you physically see it? If organisms are predisposed for adaptation and engineered to respond to environmental pressures how would you see it?

Click to expand...

Populations evolve over time, not individuals.

Oncedeceived said:

How would you physically see it? If organisms are predisposed for adaptation and engineered to respond to environmental pressures how would you see it?

Click to expand...

what we see is that those with the adaptions suited for the change survive, therefore that adaption is more prevelent in the population.

Take fish leaving the water, there were likly many advantages that eventually led to leaving land, ability to escape predators for short periods of time on land as some fish do now without having lungs and so on.

loveofourlord said:

Random mutation only acts, but it's not random that a fin turns into a leg, becauuse they provide some form of advantage over it's predecesors, the mutations just provide the new form that antural selection can work on.

Click to expand...

Right. New life forms are the result of random naturalistic mechanisms in the view of evolution we're discussing. Natural selection only populates, or depopulates, those new life forms.

Yes evolution is mindless and without a goal, but doesn't mean the creator didn't have a goal. With billions of planets, and such it's not hard to see god planning for life to form somewhere and eventually reach our level, humans were just the result.

Click to expand...

If God was planning for the creation of humanity, then the form of evolution which claims randomness, mindless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms is in error. Evolution is planned and isn't a willy-nilly creation process.

Maybe it's the gamer in me, but to me a game like No Mans Sky where what forms is 'random' but there is a set sort of goal is more fun then creating a planet with set life, it's seeing what forms thats fun.

Click to expand...

I don't know anything about that.

Yes the single life form lived long ago, but that doesn't change it's all a long process.

Click to expand...

But it's not a random one.

RickG said:

Populations evolve over time, not individuals.

Click to expand...

Yes, and...?

Oncedeceived said:

Yes, and...?

Click to expand...

Due to environmental adaptation and isolation of populations.

justlookinla said:

Right. New life forms are the result of random naturalistic mechanisms in the view of evolution we're discussing. Natural selection only populates, or depopulates, those new life forms.



If God was planning for the creation of humanity, then the form of evolution which claims randomness, mindless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms is in error. Evolution is planned and isn't a willy-nilly creation process.



I don't know anything about that.



But it's not a random one.

Click to expand...

Right the early life form isn't random, but the process that created the changes that were selected for wasn't.

Here is a example. You heard of the flagellum experiment? They took a type of bacteria, and destroyed the gene that allows the flagellum from rotating, then put the bacteria into a nutrient rich petri dish, three weas no way for the bacteria to move, only thing that would save that type would be evolution. Does this mean that the bacteria would have to purposly create a new gene? No, and it wouldn't be this one, or even any bacteria in the next few hundred generations, but over time through mutations a gene could possibly appear that allow the flagellum to move before it ran out of food, it's just as likly it would die off. What happened? Sure enough one or more members of the bacteria got a new protein that allowd the flagellum to move, and it was different and novel to the original method. Now the bacteria that evolved the ability to use their flagellum again wasn't random, the process that created the new protein was, and it was random that such a gene would appear.

This is how it is with life. It was random that a life form would appear with the sequence of mutations to allow it to walk on land eventually and so on, noticable by how few species have evolved since, but it's not random that the species with those mutations did.

Not sure if it's the experiment I'm thinking of, but a example of it, and how/why it works a bit I will look into it more.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42284/title/Evolutionary-Rewiring/

loveofourlord said:

Right the early life form isn't random, but the process that created the changes that were selected for wasn't.

Here is a example. You heard of the flagellum experiment? They took a type of bacteria, and destroyed the gene that allows the flagellum from rotating, then put the bacteria into a nutrient rich petri dish, three weas no way for the bacteria to move, only thing that would save that type would be evolution. Does this mean that the bacteria would have to purposly create a new gene? No, and it wouldn't be this one, or even any bacteria in the next few hundred generations, but over time through mutations a gene could possibly appear that allow the flagellum to move before it ran out of food, it's just as likly it would die off. What happened? Sure enough one or more members of the bacteria got a new protein that allowd the flagellum to move, and it was different and novel to the original method. Now the bacteria that evolved the ability to use their flagellum again wasn't random, the process that created the new protein was, and it was random that such a gene would appear.

Click to expand...

Can you offer evidence that the process was random which created the new protein?

This is how it is with life. It was random that a life form would appear with the sequence of mutations to allow it to walk on land eventually and so on, noticable by how few species have evolved since, but it's not random that the species with those mutations did.

Not sure if it's the experiment I'm thinking of, but a example of it, and how/why it works a bit I will look into it more.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42284/title/Evolutionary-Rewiring/

Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm on link overload. For quite a while I wouldn't follow links because of the practice of someone just posting a link and saying 'here it is, find it' providing no effort to actually reference the pertinent part of the linked article.

What are you wanting me to find in the link?

DogmaHunter said:

Once more.......

The core principles apply. It doesn't matter if the chromosome is 8 bits in length or a gazillion gigabytes.
It's the same on every level of complexity: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Click to expand...

It does matter. It is you that claims a simple genome evolved into a complex genome - where no other information existed in the original genome. You do not even have a viable theory of how one gets from C to CATG for DNA and RUGC for RNA which combines into eDNA of pairs A-T, T-A, Y-X, T-A, X-Y and G-C and eRNA of ACYXGU.

No, you want to jump from one protein and magically conjure up the letters R,U,X,Y,T,G,A out of thin air as Once has been trying to get you to come clean to. You have yet to show even a viable method of producing simple proteins - since the experiment degraded in less than a month from an inorganic protein to an inorganic sludge in which no further proteins could be produced. Not to mention for every protein the experimental conditions are incompatible with every other one. No, you have yet to get past the first step as even plausible, let alone all the other claims.

It is you that ignores 200+ years of genetic experiments with mutation and reproduction. Those actually involved in the field have all but abandoned those mutations as capable of producing anything.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

justlookinla said:

Can you offer evidence that the process was random which created the new protein?



Honestly, I'm on link overload. For quite a while I wouldn't follow links because of the practice of someone just posting a link and saying 'here it is, find it' providing no effort to actually reference the pertinent part of the linked article.

What are you wanting me to find in the link?

Click to expand...

It didn't get new genomes - it used that so-called "junk" DNA to repair the existing DNA - those backup copies that enable the DNA to check against to self-correct. The idea that in a system so interdependent on every other genome in the entire body that has mechanisms built in to self-correct and self-repair that damage - is somehow caused by random mutation is just so unscientific it would be laughable if they were not actually serious about it.

It repaired itself - just as it was designed to do from the start. Just as it is designed to do to protect itself against the very mutation claimed to be benefiting it. A one in a billion shot that a mutation is beneficial in the first place, and a one in a billion shot it makes it through the repair process without getting corrected.

Notice how they have switched their stance to human ancestors now being recent in the past - while still requiring those millions of years for a random mutation to fix itself in the population - while the population stays the same (20 or so) until all those shared mutations do their thing, and then bam - the population explodes to meet current observation.

Don't think mutation had anything to do with that self-repair of the damaged DNA strand that allowed those single cell organisms to move. That is already a built-in design of the existing genome - designed specifically to correct for that damage - by mutation of other means.

Justatruthseeker said:

It didn't get new genomes - it used that so-called "junk" DNA to repair the existing DNA - those backup copies that enable the DNA to check against to self-correct. The idea that in a system so interdependent on every other genome in the entire body that has mechanisms built in to self-correct and self-repair that damage - is somehow caused by random mutation is just so unscientific it would be laughable if they were not actually serious about it.

It repaired itself - just as it was designed to do from the start. Just as it is designed to do to protect itself against the very mutation claimed to be benefiting it. A one in a billion shot that a mutation is beneficial in the first place, and a one in a billion shot it makes it through the repair process without getting corrected.

Notice how they have switched their stance to human ancestors now being recent in the past - while still requiring those millions of years for a random mutation to fix itself in the population - while the population stays the same (20 or so) until all those shared mutations do their thing, and then bam - the population explodes to meet current observation.

Don't think mutation had anything to do with that self-repair of the damaged DNA strand that allowed those single cell organisms to move. That is already a built-in design of the existing genome - designed specifically to correct for that damage - by mutation of other means.

Click to expand...

Yes, this was the reason I was asking for clarification. Was the repair just a random process or was it the result of a 'programmed' impetus.

DogmaHunter said:

Then you should have just clarified your views, instead of posting a list that didn't have anything to do with the question being asked.

Click to expand...

Clarified them? I've stated it over a 100 times in different posts, so much so I got tired of repeating myself and made an attachment specifically because people can't seem to get it right. It's not my fault you can't remember anything past the previous post.

I don't "need to believe" in anything.
I accept that which convinces me with sufficient evidence and I have no emotional attachment to any such theories.

I accept evolution because of the evidence and that's it.

Click to expand...

What evidence? Incorrectly classified Finches and fossils?

Errr....
I don't really care about what Darwin said... anymore then I care about what captain Kirk said.

Darwin was wrong about lots of stuff, just like Newton.
Yet, both are remembered for their incredible contribution concerning the things that they WERE correct about, or at least the things they theorised that put science on a whole new track, leading to a wealth of new information.

Other then that, I couldn't care less what some guy said 2 centuries ago.

Click to expand...

And yet it is those same evolutionists who's papers you cite that also supprt Darwin and those claim's of Finches undergoing speciation and being seperate species. Despite the DNA evidence and despite the fact they all interbreed. Sure, blame it all on a dead man so you can ignore they are still making the same wrong claims today.

Why would I care for "christian" research any more then you care about "muslim" research or "hindu" research?

What is this nonsense?

Click to expand...

Why would you even try to classify research into religious or non-religious? What is that nonsense? Science is science. I notice the electricity works because of Maxwell, regardless of whether he was Christian or not. It is YOU that wanted to divide science into classifications. Make up your mind what you believe from one post to the next.

I'm aware of Lemaitre. He's a big name in the University of Leuven (Louvain), where I also attended.

Are you trying to say now that big bang cosmology is "christian science", because Lemaitre also happened to be a catholic priest as well as a cosmologist?

Perhaps you are not aware of his letter exchange with the Pope, where he told the pope quite literally to not try to hijack his scientific theory to make a religious point.

Click to expand...

No, he informed the Pope that it was made so that those who chose not to attach religious beliefs to it could do so, but in no-wise subtracted from it being a creation event.

"As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

For the believer it just removed any attempt to think one could describe a God "hidden even in the beginning." To dream one could construct an image of mind.

Don't try strawman misquoting.

Also, perhaps you should think about who started modern algebra and astronomy.

Hint: it starts with an "m" and it ends with "uslim".

Click to expand...

But it's not me that thinks that because one has a specific belief - science is not valid when discovered by them. You believe in evolution - a false belief - but if you discovered a new scientific principle tomorrow about astronomy - I wouldn't hold that against you. It's you that are picking and choosing - not me. Science is science - no matter ones personal beliefs - as long as those personal beliefs do not twist the data.

EDIT: What did Newton get wrong? It's cosmologists that keep trying to apply gravitational theory to plasma (99% of the universe) - despite not one single plasma physicist in the lab doing so. It's his theory we use for every single spacecraft ever launched within a system made of solids, liquids and gasses - for which it was designed.

Again - you want to blame a dead man for your inability to recognize they are applying the wrong theory to the wrong state of matter.

RickG said:

Due to environmental adaptation and isolation of populations.

Click to expand...

I am not following? How is this relevant to what I asked you?

DogmaHunter said:

There is nothing ignored.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

All these principles are present.

It makes no difference if the chromosome is 8 bits in length or a gazillion gigabytes.
It makes no difference if it is a single track or a thousand tracks.

The same principles apply.

Click to expand...

Principles are not all that matter.

And I eplained why that "reason" was wrong.

Click to expand...

You didn't explain anything you made claims and assertions and didn't address the real issues.

By that logic, every controlled experiment goes out the window in terms of usefullness.

This is nothing but anti-science rethoric.

Click to expand...

I am not discounting its usefulness, I am discounting its accuracy in simulating biological evolution. I find it humorous that if someone disagrees with you, you automatically claim they are anti-science as if you were the voice of science. The science behind the evolution is not being simulated in this program.

If that were true, there would be no need to employ a massive team of programmers to implement the GA.

Click to expand...

You can't be serious?

The point you made is that evolution can't produce designs.

Your point is refuted. You continue to dance around the issue.

Click to expand...

An intelligently designed program that ignores biological elements in its design does not provide any evidence that evolution can produce the appearance of design, nor does it refute my point.

Each of these three seem designed specifically for the track they exist on.
Yet, they all started out like random shapes, like the first one I posted.

Click to expand...

They do, however they are not real organisms and real mutations, generations, pressures or selection and the program ignores cellular realities and using biologically realistic parameter values.

Indeed, this is a direct refutation of the idea that the evolutionary process (mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat) can not produce design.

Click to expand...

No, it provides a simulation that does not reflect the nuances and realities of evolution. The principles themselves are not as simple as mutate, survive, reproduce and repeat.

And intelligence was need to create the freezer. But that doesn't mean that the ice on the arctic isn't the result of natural processes.

Click to expand...

Nonsensical and irrelevant.

Not a SINGLE line of code has direct control of the designs being produced. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. It is irrelevant because everything is pre-set.

NO intelligence WHATSOEVER is involved in producing these designs.

Click to expand...

I hope you know how ridiculous this statement is.

It's just a blind algoritm: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Click to expand...

All the information comes from intelligent design, why can't you understand that?

The only things that are programmed are:
- the selection pressures (a good algoritm will make these dynamic variables that can be changed while running)
- the fitness test which will test the individuals of a generation against the selection pressures
- a rather random "merge" algorithm to produce a new generation from breeding pairs
- a selection strategy (in GA, several are possible, some of them well explained on the carbox site - which you didn't bother to click around in

Click to expand...

What was the mutation rate? What was the proportion of selectively useful single point mutations? What is the rate of selection?

You don't know what I'm saying because you have no clue about GA's. And this quote right here is black on white evidence of that.

Click to expand...

And you have no clue about biological evolution and your mantra of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat is evidence of that...right here in black and white.

The "chromosome" is the name given to the string of characters/numbers that represents an individual in a GA. It's analogous to a DNA string in living creatures.

So, this is again black on white evidence that you insist on arguing against things that you have NO CLUE about.

Had you read about GA's - even only as an introduction-, you would have known this.

Click to expand...

I admit it has been quite a long time since I visited the site.

How is it not?

A wheel's function is LITERALLY controlled by more then 3 variables. If one is out of whack, the wheel comes off.

So all of those variables need to be just right or the system does not work.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am talking about, you look at this simulation and can really believe it is the same in the systems in living forms. It isn't. Three variables is laughable when you look at the systems we are referring to.

Click to expand...

Right back at cha.

There is no intelligence whatsoever involved in producing the designs of the cars.
It starts with a random cluster of polygons and it ends with highly efficient cars.

The process by which this is achieved: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

It's not really a simulation...

It IS an evolutionary process. Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Click to expand...

How much have you researched on your own about the ToE?

justlookinla said:

Can you offer evidence that the process was random which created the new protein?



Honestly, I'm on link overload. For quite a while I wouldn't follow links because of the practice of someone just posting a link and saying 'here it is, find it' providing no effort to actually reference the pertinent part of the linked article.

What are you wanting me to find in the link?

Click to expand...

It refernces a series of experiments where they disabled a protein that let the flagellum grow, and within a few generations the bacteria would grow it back.

Basic premise of what I said.

As for how do you know it's random, because it was novel, it was a different method then the one that was disabled, so it wasn't just the system repairing what was broken, it was creating a new protein to fix the problem.

And they could trace the fix and see that it was new protein and unrelated. This is how it works, small mutations over time produce new features, if it's beneficial it remains, if neutral it says, if not it will die out. Like with the breaking of the flagellum unless they find a way around it, the mutation *though forced* dies off once food runs out, but a new mutations that allows for movement returning stays.

And it's not up to us to show it was random, you have to show why it wouldn't be and prove it. We know how such mutations occur and we know they do.

The Cadet said:

Oh. Weird. Then why did you hold this up as evidence when I asked you for evidence of a designed purpose?

Click to expand...

I never specified designed purpose. You asked what purpose was in living forms. Move the goalposts much?

Doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter at all.

It does not matter that Boxcar2d is more simplistic than cell biology. It really doesn't. Because we're not talking about complexity. We're talking about the appearance of design.

Try to keep up. A semi-random algorithm that starts with essentially a random mess of polygons and "designs" exclusively by breeding the best-adapted individuals and mutating them by a small percent eventually comes up with individuals that have the appearance of design. But they weren't designed in-simulation. There's no explicit design here, simply a genetic algorithm that simulates blind evolution. If you doubt that, you can look at the "about" page, see how the algorithm was constructed, rebuild it yourself, and check the results.

Click to expand...

Oh it matters, it matters a lot.