-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Humans from Chance?
- Thread starter Yasin
- Start date
Flappycat
Well-Known Member
Well, the real problem with the 99% harmful figure is that it's counter-intuitive to what Suraj is trying to argue. Suraj is attempting to argue that DNA somehow has a mind of its own and changes as a result of some conscious direction. As hokey as this sounds, his argument would be self-contradicting even to someone with no background at all on the subject. The fact that most mutations are unbeneficial is actually proof against what he's trying to say. The species we have today could only have come about as a result of the natural process of selection and competition. The more numerous an animal, the wider its genepool and the more chances it has to produce something of benefit.
Say there are one hundred Kahdoozles and two hundred Peguzies. Under the 99% figure, there would be one positive mutation in the Kahdoozle population and two from the Peguzies. This would produce one new and valuable survival trait for the Kahdoozles and two for the Peguzies, thus the already more successful Peguzies would have one more selective advantage to add to those which made it possible for them to outnumber the Kahdoozles in the first place, and, if this survival trait increased their potential for outnumbering the Kahdoozles by one hundred percent, there would be two new Peguzies for each new Kahdoozle until the Peguzies have so vastly outnumbered the Kahdoozles that the less lucky of the two were driven into extinction by weight of superior numbers.
What happened to those negative traits produced by the Peguzies, though? Well, quite the same thing. Lesser traits would naturally be selected out over a long period of time. Though most of the Peguzies might tend toward a downward evolutionary path, harmful mutations would reduce their statistical likelihood of equalling their betters in number, thus the more beneficial mutations would still have superiority in the longrun.
The thing is, as a species reaches a certain point, progress begins to slow. Why? Well, it's hard to improve upon near-"perfection," so modern speciation would naturally move much slower than it did during the Cambrian explosion. Specialization that gives species absolute dominance in particular ecosystems and sophisticated ways of surviving in most environments can reach such a level of sophistication that the chances of a mutation helping rather than hurting would be greatly reduced. In more primitive life-forms, there would have been such a low level of sophistication that any given mutation would have had much greater chances of offering a selective advantage and less chance of wrecking a sophisticated adaptation. Though it would move slowly, of course, it wouldn't necessarily prevent the possibility of future improvements.
I just explained the Cambrian explosion AND how a low frequency of helpful mutation not only favors the theory of natural selection but makes it impossible to argue that evolution has intentional direction. At this point, you're reduced to the absolute origin of life, which can only be explored speculatively. The thing is, something tells me that you're likely to put a high degree of certainty in yet another thing that should only be regarded as raw speculation, which is the real flaw in Creationist patterns of thought. In real science, speculation will only be treated as speculation, so any hopes of converting masses of scientists and such-minded people to your particular brand of religion are permanently doomed. Speculation is all that they will ever regard it as, and that's if you're luckier than you've earned. Scientists can at least extrapolate in their explorations of life's origins, and you don't even have that.
Say there are one hundred Kahdoozles and two hundred Peguzies. Under the 99% figure, there would be one positive mutation in the Kahdoozle population and two from the Peguzies. This would produce one new and valuable survival trait for the Kahdoozles and two for the Peguzies, thus the already more successful Peguzies would have one more selective advantage to add to those which made it possible for them to outnumber the Kahdoozles in the first place, and, if this survival trait increased their potential for outnumbering the Kahdoozles by one hundred percent, there would be two new Peguzies for each new Kahdoozle until the Peguzies have so vastly outnumbered the Kahdoozles that the less lucky of the two were driven into extinction by weight of superior numbers.
What happened to those negative traits produced by the Peguzies, though? Well, quite the same thing. Lesser traits would naturally be selected out over a long period of time. Though most of the Peguzies might tend toward a downward evolutionary path, harmful mutations would reduce their statistical likelihood of equalling their betters in number, thus the more beneficial mutations would still have superiority in the longrun.
The thing is, as a species reaches a certain point, progress begins to slow. Why? Well, it's hard to improve upon near-"perfection," so modern speciation would naturally move much slower than it did during the Cambrian explosion. Specialization that gives species absolute dominance in particular ecosystems and sophisticated ways of surviving in most environments can reach such a level of sophistication that the chances of a mutation helping rather than hurting would be greatly reduced. In more primitive life-forms, there would have been such a low level of sophistication that any given mutation would have had much greater chances of offering a selective advantage and less chance of wrecking a sophisticated adaptation. Though it would move slowly, of course, it wouldn't necessarily prevent the possibility of future improvements.
I just explained the Cambrian explosion AND how a low frequency of helpful mutation not only favors the theory of natural selection but makes it impossible to argue that evolution has intentional direction. At this point, you're reduced to the absolute origin of life, which can only be explored speculatively. The thing is, something tells me that you're likely to put a high degree of certainty in yet another thing that should only be regarded as raw speculation, which is the real flaw in Creationist patterns of thought. In real science, speculation will only be treated as speculation, so any hopes of converting masses of scientists and such-minded people to your particular brand of religion are permanently doomed. Speculation is all that they will ever regard it as, and that's if you're luckier than you've earned. Scientists can at least extrapolate in their explorations of life's origins, and you don't even have that.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello Suraj,
You said:
[Just for the record...the quotes in your (post #195) reply were not of my own craft, and did not address the points I specifically offered.]
No rush...I don't visit often enough to REF myself.
But...I'm still here...;-)
You said:
Cool. It's five days and counting since your post #195...my breath is hereby baited...;-)
[Just for the record...the quotes in your (post #195) reply were not of my own craft, and did not address the points I specifically offered.]
No rush...I don't visit often enough to REF myself.
But...I'm still here...;-)
Yasin
Member
Sunstone said:
By nothing i mean nonexistent matter, that is to say, matter originating from non-matter, which rases the question of the first cell.
By random chance i mean unconscious atoms coming together to form matter, which by comparison are more complex. In clearer terms, non living matter without control coming together to form life.
Yasin
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Rising from the dead?
Sure. For example. If I generate a 1.000 - digit random number; the odds of that number having been randomly generated in one try was 1 - 1x10^1000. Must one therefore conclude that I did not randomly generate my randomly generated number?
This appears to be too many posts back. Since the first cell came from already-exiting matter (abiogenesis), I don't see the connection between "abiogenesis" and "nonexistant matter".
You mean like how unconsious atoms form molecules, or how unconsious water molicules from complex geometric patters when the freeze?