Understanding Evolution (2)

[Smidlee]

No, I know evolution isn't random, no one who understands the theory, or even just observes nature in general, would consider it random. The wind isn't random either, and it is just as much a part of nature. Something doesn't have to have intelligence behind it to be nonrandom.

What do you mean the wind isn't random? The wind is not predictable even though government by natural laws. Sound like you are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You want your random, unpredictable, unguided evolution to be directed, nonrandom, glided at the same time.

Purpose and design is found everywhere by some people as a result of a logic fallacy inherent in our species. I see faces in a bunch of situations where there is no actual face, like at the front of a lot of cars. It is just a result of a tendecy to group things.

That logic would apply to anything and everything including your faith in evolution.

I immediately know who that is while at the same time know it not a true exact drawing of Bush Sr. I can tell the difference between an imagine of a object and the actual object. Designs in nature are not just imagines but actual designs with purpose and goals.

 

[keith99]

What do you mean the wind isn't random? The wind is not predictable even though government by natural laws. Sound like you are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You want your random, unpredictable, unguided evolution to be directed, nonrandom, glided at the same time.


That logic would apply to anything and everything including your faith in evolution.

I immediately know who that is while at the same time know it not a true exact drawing of Bush Sr. I can tell the difference between an imagine of a object and the actual object. Designs in nature are not just imagines but actual designs with purpose and goals.

Do you even know what the word random means?

Here in Southern California the wind tends to come up in the afternoon and blow from North to South on the Coast. There are similar predictable tendencys all across the globe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What do you mean the wind isn't random? The wind is not predictable even though government by natural laws. Sound like you are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You want your random, unpredictable, unguided evolution to be directed, nonrandom, glided at the same time.


That logic would apply to anything and everything including your faith in evolution.

I immediately know who that is while at the same time know it not a true exact drawing of Bush Sr. I can tell the difference between an imagine of a object and the actual object. Designs in nature are not just imagines but actual designs with purpose and goals.

-_- the wind is controlled by temperature and pressure changes in the air. The wind doesn't randomly blow one way or another, it always moves according to factors such as this. It is even part of the weather forecast you see on the news, air currents and everything. To be truly random, something has to interact with no recognizable relationship to any other phenomenon. The wind does not do that.

I have never claimed evolution to be random, I challenge you to find a single instance of me calling evolution random. You would probably be hard pressed to even find an evolution supporter on this site who does. Even if mutation was perfectly random, it isn't the only aspect of evolution. Natural selection and genetic drift are exceedingly non random, the process on a whole could never be considered random when the vast majority of it doesn't even come close to random. Random evolution would result in nonsense such as populations of desert lizards developing gills and requiring excessive amounts of water every day. Species and their traits wouldn't be reflective of the environments they live in.

I don't have any more faith in evolution than you have faith in the sun rising tomorrow. It just is.

 

[Smidlee]

-_- the wind is controlled by temperature and pressure changes in the air. The wind doesn't randomly blow one way or another, it always moves according to factors such as this. It is even part of the weather forecast you see on the news, air currents and everything. To be truly random, something has to interact with no recognizable relationship to any other phenomenon. The wind does not do that.

You are suggesting temperatures and pressure changes are not random? It is like saying dice roll is not random because they are roll by a hand on purpose.

I have never claimed evolution to be random, I challenge you to find a single instance of me calling evolution random. You would probably be hard pressed to even find an evolution supporter on this site who does. Even if mutation was perfectly random, it isn't the only aspect of evolution. Natural selection and genetic drift are exceedingly non random, the process on a whole could never be considered random when the vast majority of it doesn't even come close to random. Random evolution would result in nonsense such as populations of desert lizards developing gills and requiring excessive amounts of water every day. Species and their traits wouldn't be reflective of the environments they live in.

NS is not a force and only the result while genetic draft are random. How could random evolution result in lizards developing gills? This is like saying a random roll of two six-sided dice could sum up to 13. Evolution in nature is not random because a living cell has built-in knowledge to adapt itself to it's environment. This is not Darwinism evolution as the "little eyeball that could" story.

I don't have any more faith in evolution than you have faith in the sun rising tomorrow. It just is.

In another words "Stuff happens" The sun rising in the morning is not the same as claiming we came from Boobzilla.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are suggesting temperatures and pressure changes are not random? It is like saying dice roll is not random because they are roll by a hand on purpose.
NS is not a force and only the result while genetic draft are random. How could random evolution result in lizards developing gills? This is like saying a random roll of two six-sided dice could sum up to 13. Evolution in nature is not random because a living cell has built-in knowledge to adapt itself to it's environment. This is not Darwinism evolution as the "little eyeball that could" story.
In another words "Stuff happens" The sun rising in the morning is not the same as claiming we came from Boobzilla.

Temperature and pressure changes aren't random. Why do you think there is a hurricane season? It is influenced by the fact that the surface of the earth is unevenly heated by the sun, thanks to its tilt and rotation, which also are not random. None of this is random, random things cannot be predictable or follow any sort of pattern.

No... Adaptation on a genetic level is complicated, but a cell cannot make itself mutate to fit the environment. If cells could, extinction would be nearly nonexistent. Well, in the sense of evolutionary dead ends that left no modern descendants. Genetic drift is not random, it can only occur in large, stable populations. And its effects are so consistent as to define it.

You might want to recheck how you spelled the last word of your last sentence.

-_- you act as if lizards couldn't have a mutation occur that gave them gills. My point is that established populations are reflective of the environment, there are always individuals that have mutations that are detrimental. If they are bad enough, they die before reproducing. It is a big part of how natural selection works.

 

[Smidlee]

Temperature and pressure changes aren't random. Why do you think there is a hurricane season? It is influenced by the fact that the surface of the earth is unevenly heated by the sun, thanks to its tilt and rotation, which also are not random. None of this is random, random things cannot be predictable or follow any sort of pattern.

By rolling two dice I can predict the probably of the dice to sum up to 2,3,4,5,6,7, etc. So even something random can have some predictability.

No... Adaptation on a genetic level is complicated, but a cell cannot make itself mutate to fit the environment. If cells could, extinction would be nearly nonexistent. Well, in the sense of evolutionary dead ends that left no modern descendants. Genetic drift is not random, it can only occur in large, stable populations. And its effects are so consistent as to define it.

there is evidence that a cell can and has done just that. It's not as simple as DNA-R-US.

You might want to recheck how you spelled the last word of your last sentence.

-_- you act as if lizards couldn't have a mutation occur that gave them gills.

Can you show me a lizard who mutated some gills.

My point is that established populations are reflective of the environment, there are always individuals that have mutations that are detrimental. If they are bad enough, they die before reproducing. It is a big part of how natural selection works.

Random mutations often are bad and natural selection DEATH can kill them before reproducing if the mutation is bad enough. Natural selection is not a real force but a result .... death.

 

[PsychoSarah]

By rolling two dice I can predict the probably of the dice to sum up to 2,3,4,5,6,7, etc. So even something random can have some predictability.
there is evidence that a cell can and has done just that. It's not as simple as DNA-R-US.
Can you show me a lizard who mutated some gills. Random mutations often are bad and natural selection DEATH can kill them before reproducing if the mutation is bad enough. Natural selection is not a real force but a result .... death.

A dice roll result isn't random. It is just about as close to random as you can get within reason. Even "random number generators" aren't completely random.

Methylation and activation of genes is not mutation. DNA, nor any cell process, purposely mutates genes to adapt to the environment. In fact, a great deal of energy within cells is expended to prevent mutations due to errors in DNA replication from sticking around. Cells proofread replicated DNA really well.

A lizard with gills? I don't know, but I can show you a fish with air breathing lungs. Mutations are more often than not neutral. Fact of the matter is, the vast majority of them do little to nothing. It wouldn't matter if for every good mutation there were a million bad ones, the principle still works.

Natural selection applies to reproduction. You can also have mutations that prevent reproduction but don't result in your death, and mutations that do result in your death but not soon enough to prevent reproduction. Hence why Parkinson's disease is still a thing.

 

[Smidlee]

A dice roll result isn't random. It is just about as close to random as you can get within reason. Even "random number generators" aren't completely random.

Methylation and activation of genes is not mutation. DNA, nor any cell process, purposely mutates genes to adapt to the environment. In fact, a great deal of energy within cells is expended to prevent mutations due to errors in DNA replication from sticking around. Cells proofread replicated DNA really well.

It was learn the bacteria on purpose with hinder the error correction mechanism in certain hot spot in order to find a solution. Thus the idea natural genetic engineering. The cell will engineer it's own DNA

A lizard with gills? I don't know, but I can show you a fish with air breathing lungs. Mutations are more often than not neutral. Fact of the matter is, the vast majority of them do little to nothing. It wouldn't matter if for every good mutation there were a million bad ones, the principle still works.

and I can show you as monkey with a tail. The majority of mutations as in one at a time may not do little to nothing but what about a ton of them over time like what happens in your body as you age?

Natural selection applies to reproduction. You can also have mutations that prevent reproduction but don't result in your death, and mutations that do result in your death but not soon enough to prevent reproduction. Hence why Parkinson's disease is still a thing.

Now we are just splitting hairs since if you cells in your body can't reproduce then you are good as dead. I was no doubt referring to death including no reproducing since ultimately natural death happens to us all.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It was learn the bacteria on purpose with hinder the error correction mechanism in certain hot spot in order to find a solution. Thus the idea natural genetic engineering. The cell will engineer it's own DNA
and I can show you as monkey with a tail. The majority of mutations as in one at a time may not do little to nothing but what about a ton of them over time like what happens in your body as you age?
Now we are just splitting hairs since if you cells in your body can't reproduce you are good as dead. I was no doubt referring to death including no reproducing since ultimately natural death happens to us all.

It would help if you reformed those first two sentences there, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I can show you humans with tails, it happens sometimes. And yes, cells engineer their own DNA, but they don't effortfully make changes to it.

Aging itself is not fully understood, but theories revolving around how DNA contributes to it relate to imperfections in how DNA replicates. You see, every time DNA is replicated, it becomes shorter because the replication mechanism just can't replicate the very ends of lagging strands. Eventually, this starts eating away at the DNA until it can no longer function properly. This results in cell death. It isn't mutation, it is literally pieces of DNA being just lost at the ends. It also isn't passed down from generation to generation thanks to the fact that the reproductive system has mechanisms which prevent sperm and eggs from having shortened DNA.

Actually, there are organisms which effectively do not age. They certainly can and do die, but it is unrelated to age. Heck, I own some: tropical pitcher plants. No one really knows how long they can live, but some of the ones collected in the 1800s when they were discovered are still around and don't look much different from plants in their 20s. Their cells don't have the shortening issue, so clearly, it isn't a necessary flaw to be a multicellular organism.

 

[Smidlee]

It would help if you reformed those first two sentences there, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I can show you humans with tails, it happens sometimes. And yes, cells engineer their own DNA, but they don't effortfully make changes to it.

Ever read about "jumping genes" ?

Aging itself is not fully understood, but theories revolving around how DNA contributes to it relate to imperfections in how DNA replicates. You see, every time DNA is replicated, it becomes shorter because the replication mechanism just can't replicate the very ends of lagging strands. Eventually, this starts eating away at the DNA until it can no longer function properly. This results in cell death. It isn't mutation, it is literally pieces of DNA being just lost at the ends. It also isn't passed down from generation to generation thanks to the fact that the reproductive system has mechanisms which prevent sperm and eggs from having shortened DNA.

I don't say mutation alone causes aging. Mutation cause serious health problems.

Actually, there are organisms which effectively do not age. They certainly can and do die, but it is unrelated to age. Heck, I own some: tropical pitcher plants. No one really knows how long they can live, but some of the ones collected in the 1800s when they were discovered are still around and don't look much different from plants in their 20s. Their cells don't have the shortening issue, so clearly, it isn't a necessary flaw to be a multicellular organism.

Ok. But that doesn't deal with those mutation adding up over time as we aged.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ever read about "jumping genes" ?
I don't say mutation alone causes aging. Mutation cause serious health problems.
Ok. But that doesn't deal with those mutation adding up over time as we aged.

Jumping genes are not mutations that most cells have occur on purpose, they are just a sort of mutation that CAN occur. In fact, literally only 1 organism with what is considered to be a unique genome has that play a purposeful and critical role in their development. Hint, it isn't humans. I am well aware genes can also move to different places, but in all but that 1 organism, cells don't facilitate it.

Yeah, mutation causes health problems. Not all mutations do though. Most, again, don't do anything.

They add up because even the proofreading mechanism is imperfect. Plus, methylation can deactivate key genes for DNA repair, thus allowing those mutations to build up even faster. Doesn't impact sperm and eggs though, so no direct evolutionary impact.

 

[Smidlee]

Jumping genes are not mutations that most cells have occur on purpose, they are just a sort of mutation that CAN occur. In fact, literally only 1 organism with what is considered to be a unique genome has that play a purposeful and critical role in their development. Hint, it isn't humans. I am well aware genes can also move to different places, but in all but that 1 organism, cells don't facilitate it.

that's not what I've read. The more we learn about the living cell the less anything is done at random.

Yeah, mutation causes health problems. Not all mutations do though. Most, again, don't do anything.

They add up because even the proofreading mechanism is imperfect. Plus, methylation can deactivate key genes for DNA repair, thus allowing those mutations to build up even faster. Doesn't impact sperm and eggs though, so no direct evolutionary impact.

Doesn't impact sperm and eggs? I read about genetic entropy?

 

[PsychoSarah]

that's not what I've read. The more we learn about the living cell the less anything is done at random. Doesn't impact sperm and eggs? I read about genetic entropy?

Methylation tendencies can be inherited, but you aren't born with the same genes methylated as your parents. Weirdly enough, for reasons we don't yet understand, it seems methylation tendencies additionally seem more reflective of our grandparents than our parents.

I am not claiming anything is random, that would be you.

 

[Smidlee]

I am not claiming anything is random, that would be you.

I'm a creationist not a Neo-Darwinist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm a creationist not a Neo-Darwinist.

I'm not a Neo-Darwinist either sir. Are you assuming I am? I have no intentions of defending a position shown flawed before I was even born.

 

[dad]

I'm not a Neo-Darwinist either sir. Are you assuming I am? I have no intentions of defending a position shown flawed before I was even born.

I would think that the position championed by Darwin was to explain away life on earth avoiding creation religiously. Although he was shown wrong in some details, the basic position is what evolution is all about today.

Glorified doubt in God and creation. End of story.

 

[justlookinla]

Not discussing this anymore.

Ok.

The post where I supplied links to the two articles on limitations on randomness in mutations. The articles both showed that research indicates a significant amount of randomness still occurs in mutation events. You never addressed it except to say "guess and suppositions". You obviously didn't comprehend the articles. That is why this part of the discussion is over. Moving on to the evidence for common descent.
Which is why I'm moving on to common descent.

Well, you certainly failed to give evidence for you and I, and all life, to be the product of only random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago. And yes, the articled you referenced were nothing more than the usual guesses and suppositions of atheistic Darwinist creationists.

Here's a snippet which includes the usual 'could be's, might have beens' and possibly's to prevelent in faith-based atheistic Darwinist creationism....

"The findings could explain why evolution occurs much faster than if mutations were, in fact, totally random, the researchers said. The repeated sequences may also be necessary for evolution, they said."​

Neither will you.

No, you just mock anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I only mocked you.

Ready to move on to common descent?

First, we must determine who created the life forms of alleged common descent.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Ok.



Well, you certainly failed to give evidence for you and I, and all life, to be the product of only random/chance mutations acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago. And yes, the articled you referenced were nothing more than the usual guesses and suppositions of atheistic Darwinist creationists.

Here's a snippet which includes the usual 'could be's, might have beens' and possibly's to prevelent in faith-based atheistic Darwinist creationism....

"The findings could explain why evolution occurs much faster than if mutations were, in fact, totally random, the researchers said. The repeated sequences may also be necessary for evolution, they said."​

First, we must determine who created the life forms of alleged common descent.

I feel that your misrepresentation of what I write has gone on long enough that I am not inclined to comply with your request. Therefore you may continue with your posting about ultimate impetus but I will no longer reply with support for evolution or the relative randomness of mutations.

Since you continue, despite any presentation of evidence, to contend that both conclusions are faith-based, I see no reason for this line of discussion to continue. You already believe that no one is able to determine who/what created, beyond the investigation of the mechanisms that were used.

As a side note, your continued attribution of 'faith-based" to scientific conclusions has shown that faith has no worth as an arbiter of truth.

You may now move on to common descent or continue to speak in an empty room....your choice.

 

[selfinflikted]

As a side note, your continued attribution of 'faith-based" to scientific conclusions has shown that faith has no worth as an arbiter of truth.

A thousand times, this.

 

[justlookinla]

I feel that your misrepresentation of what I write has gone on long enough that I am not inclined to comply with your request. Therefore you may continue with your posting about ultimate impetus but I will no longer reply with support for evolution or the relative randomness of mutations.

I don't feel that I misrepresent what you write, I challenge and disagree with what you write. You reference someone's opinion about the relative randomness of mutations, the only impetus whereby humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long long ago, and I point out the usual guesses and suppositions which commonly accompany such views. You attempt to use the term "evolution" as a monolithic term, and it isn't. Evolution must face the issue of how humanity was created from the alleged single life form of long long ago and must face the lack of evidence for the view that only random/chance mutations was the creative impetus.

Since you continue, despite any presentation of evidence, to contend that both conclusions are faith-based, I see no reason for this line of discussion to continue. You already believe that no one is able to determine who/what created, beyond the investigation of the mechanisms that were used.

Not so far, no.

As a side note, your continued attribution of 'faith-based" to scientific conclusions has shown that faith has no worth as an arbiter of truth.

There are no scientific conclusions, supported by evidence, that only random/chance mutations is the creator of humanity. There are plenty of pseudo-scientific guesses and suppositions though.

Why the faith-based atheistic Darwinist creationist viewpoint is allowed in schools while other faith-based creationist viewpoints is an ongoing question. And of course one which will continually be challenged.

You may now move on to common descent or continue to speak in an empty room....your choice.

Simply because you're uncomfortable with examining the implications of atheistic Darwinist creationism, and it's failure to offer evidence for the philosophical worldview, is no reason to shy away from the fact that it's no more than just another faith-based creationist viewpoint.