Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong.

[painted wolf]

Evolution is too complex to be labeled so easily.
The mutations are unpredictable and the results of those mutations are randomly bennifical.
However forces such as sexual selection and environmental influence play a vital role.
Sexual selection is not random, it is purposeful, if unconscious.

Gentic drift however is quite random.

Islands can make large animals dwarfs or small animals giants, or they may not change at all.
Sea animals tend to be very hydrodynamic, fish shapes are common repeaters (ie tuna, whale, icthyosaur) But not all aquatic animals end up or will end up looking like fish.

Evolution is a highly complex process. It has many rules that it tends to go by such as "Marsh's law" and "Mendel's law" and it has completely random events like gentic drift and punctuated equilibrium.

So it is both random and nonradom... how's that for fun.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

So evolution is more complicated than flipping a coin therefore it is unpredictable? There are a set number of things that can happen with the evolution of a species. The size can change, speed, environment it lives in, etc. But these things can be listed out on a piece of paper. We can predict what changes could occur, we just don't know which one of these changes will occur, if any.

So I still stand by my original statement saying evolution is random. We can list all the possibilities that could happen, we just don't know which possibilities will happen.

Or all that did happen.

Many creationists would be glad that you say that evolution is a finite process ("there are a set number of things that can happen"). Many evolutionists talk about mutation as if it were some kind of magic that can perform any change. Most evolutionists simply assume that the 'power' of mutation was sufficient to get us where we are. Indeed, if you follow on from what you are saying Ryan, we must logically accept that we have not yet proven that the finite 'power' of mutation can cause all of the finite genetic steps required for all that is here now. Not that we know what those steps must have been either. So, it is assumed.

 

[Ryan2065]

Evolution is too complex to be labeled so easily.

It depends how specific you want the labels to get.

So it is both random and nonradom... how's that for fun.

Well you are no fun =)

Many creationists would be glad that you say that evolution is a finite process ("there are a set number of things that can happen"). Many evolutionists talk about mutation as if it were some kind of magic that can perform any change. Most evolutionists simply assume that the 'power' of mutation was sufficient to get us where we are. Indeed, if you follow on from what you are saying Ryan, we must logically accept that we have not yet proven that the finite 'power' of mutation can cause all of the finite genetic steps required for all that is here now. Not that we know what those steps must have been either. So, it is assumed.

So you do not think that there are a finite number of things that can happen in evolution? Can you give an example of something new to happen in evolution that hasn't happened before? I realize evolution is still going on but I was under the impression that genes can only do so much.

 

[rocketman]

So you do not think that there are a finite number of things that can happen in evolution? Can you give an example of something new to happen in evolution that hasn't happened before? I realize evolution is still going on but I was under the impression that genes can only do so much.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am agreeing with what you said about things being finite, and I'm pointing out that if you were to apply that logic to the past, then we are stuck with the assumption that there were sufficient mutations of the correct type to make sufficient changes within a finite system. But we can only assume. Think about it. Just an observation. I am showing you how by saying evolution is finite you acknowledge a point that many creationists use. That's all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From the dictionary.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
ran·dom

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective

From this definition, evolution is pretty much a random process, at least in having no purpose or objective, although some patterns may emerge from time to time.

In other words: from this definition, evolution is pretty much a random process if you revise the definition. Well done!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is the perceived value or intent of all this discussion about evolution and randomness? Evolution is a process leaving in its wake a diverse array of unintended consequences, each of which being the constrained result of an interplay of natural forces.

 

[Yerda]

What is the perceived value or intent of all this discussion about evolution and randomness? Evolution is a process leaving in its wake a diverse array of unintended consequences, each of which being the constrained result of an interplay of natural forces.

I'm often suspicious that the idea of randomness is employed by creationists to give their God a hiding place in the explanation. Here, it looks like a dispute over definitions.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm often suspicious that the idea of randomness is employed by creationists to give their God a hiding place in the explanation. Here, it looks like a dispute over definitions.

Yes, but I would be more troubled by those Creationists who dispute the “randomness” of evolution in claiming that the end result is an intended, directed, designed result.

Actually it doesn’t really bother me that much that Creationist have a “hiding place” for their “God”. It does make me wonder why “God” needs to hide, but that is another issue. I don’t think evolution, or science in general, needs to be used as a weapon against theists. But when Creationists distort evidence to make it appear as if there were some kind of purposeful design, that is a problem for scientific understanding.

 

[Random]

Obviously, some people who actually use their brains have a problem with any "random" factors, such as mutation, in Evolutionary theory because randomness in and of itself is a metaphysical proposition.

It is as easy to say that nothing happens without Intent and there are no accidents as it is to claim that randomness of any sort exists in a causal realm. To assert randomness, one must first disprove causality.

Evolution cannot be both random in the sense of unintended and uncaused and simultaneously non-random in the sense of Natural Selection (which is yet another metaphysical proposition).

No ammount of intellectual disemination or clever misappropriation of terminology can escape the fact that it does not add up as it should...however:

Evolutionists are wont to accede that the understanding of science in regard to Evolution is not yet complete, so perhaps it will become clearer in time.

 

[Fredx10]

"Most probable" doesn't cut it.

 

[Fredx10]

"Islands can make large animals dwarfs or small animals giants, or they may not change at all." Now THAT'S conclusive!

 

[Sunstone]

"Most probable" doesn't cut it.

Why not?

 

[painted wolf]

"Islands can make large animals dwarfs or small animals giants, or they may not change at all." Now THAT'S conclusive!

it's good evidence that evolution isn't 100% predictable.

wa:do

 

[Haydaman]

"Islands can make large animals dwarfs or small animals giants, or they may not change at all." Now THAT'S conclusive!

Why isn't it? Every possible conclusion you can draw from the results of evolution can be summed up in that sentence...brilliant if you ask me.

 

[Anti-World]

I understand that evolution is not random. Really I do!
I understand the process of natural selection. Really!!
I understand what self-organizing processes are. I do!!!

These all support (Or, more accurately, don't contradict) a "Guiding-organizing-designing-process" and fail to address the problem posed. Since evolution is *not* simply by random occurrences then they are *Guided*! It's either one or the other. This does *not* mean that there is a all-powerful omnipotent being. It simply means that the universe has a small degree of sentience if it is controlling any part of its functions. I'm talking about a sentience of a handful of "on" and "off" switches that could simply be in place because we are part of a certain world line that happens to be set that way.

As for the light issue (I'm not personally going to write anything more on this matter):
Aas people approach the speed of light the time elapsed for the person shortens until it reaches 0 at the speed of light. I don't really care how cool or smart anyone thinks they are because they can do research on such a reliable source as Google. If you don't believe me I couldn't care less. If you can't figure it out, I also couldn't care less.

 

[fantome profane]

I understand that evolution is not random. Really I do!
I understand the process of natural selection. Really!!
I understand what self-organizing processes are. I do!!!

These all support (Or, more accurately, don't contradict) a "Guiding-organizing-designing-process" and fail to address the problem posed. Since evolution is *not* simply by random occurrences then they are *Guided*! It's either one or the other. This does *not* mean that there is a all-powerful omnipotent being. It simply means that the universe has a small degree of sentience if it is controlling any part of its functions. I'm talking about a sentience of a handful of "on" and "off" switches that could simply be in place because we are part of a certain world line that happens to be set that way.

The fact that something is non-random does not mean that it is controlled by some kind of sentience. It does not mean an all-powerful omnipotent being, and it does not mean small degree of sentience. Sentience is something that has evolved in this universe, sentience is not an explanation for how sentience (or anything else) evolved. If you really understand evolution then you understand that an appeal to a sentient cause is not necessary.

Btw, a handful of on/off switches are not sentient. A thermostat might be a better analogy to sentience (a small degree of sentience), but even then you would need a theory like evolution to explain how you got to that stage.

 

[Anti-World]

If it's not controlled then it's "random". I've seen evolutionists state, time and again, that evolution is not random. So, at the base of evolution, there is "something" controlling it. We call these "laws", "nature", "god", etc.

If you're telling me that there is *no* sentience coordinating these basic functions, like gravity and existence itself, then there could be no coordination.

If you are going to state that the universe runs neither by random chance nor any guiding force then, by all means, I want to know what you think this universe is running off of.


And fantome, fantome, fantome... Did you realize you *just* quoted me writing "This does *not* mean that there is an all-powerful omnipotent being." and then yourself state (as if apposing me) "It does not mean an all-powerful omnipotent being"?

Where is the counter argument? You've stated that sentience does not have to exist outside of non-randomness but you haven't stated how.

If something is not random then it is controlled.

Show me how that is not true.

 

[fantome profane]

If it's not controlled then it's "random". I've seen evolutionists state, time and again, that evolution is not random. So, at the base of evolution, there is "something" controlling it. We call these "laws", "nature", "god", etc.

If something is not random then it is controlled.

This is an example of the fallacy known as a false dichotomy or false dilemma. This fallacy is the entire basis of your argument. Evolution is not entirely random, and it is not controlled by a sentient force. It does not need to be one or the other, it is in fact neither.

The “laws” you refer to are not a sentient force. They are nothing more then descriptions of nature written by human beings in order to describe and predict their observations. “Nature” is not a sentient force. And I am not sure what you mean by “god”.

And fantome, fantome, fantome... Did you realize you *just* quoted me writing "This does *not* mean that there is an all-powerful omnipotent being." and then yourself state (as if apposing me) "It does not mean an all-powerful omnipotent being"?

I realize what I said. I said “It does not mean an all-powerful omnipotent being” (agreeing with you), “and it does not mean small degree of sentience” (disagreeing with you).

If you are going to state that the universe runs neither by random chance nor any guiding force then, by all means, I want to know what you think this universe is running off of.

If you really understood these things you claim you understand then you know what I think the universe is “running off of”. If you do not understand this then I suggest you take a look at this – self organization.

The entire point of these self-organizing processes is that they are non-random and they are not controlled by any sentient force. That is why they are called “self-organizing”. If they were organized by something else they would be called “organized by something else systems”.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If something is not random then it is controlled.
Show me how that is not true.

Show me how it is relevant. Then, explain the difference, if any, between 'controlled' and 'caused'.

 

[Dante]

Well comparing genetics and reproduction to sand isn't a very apt analogy to me, unless you can explain why they have correlations.

However, evolution does have a guiding force. It's not God, but natural selection. Evolution doesn't happen by "chance" in the sense that most people understand the word.

That's not a guiding force. Cause doesn't guide, it effects. One movement follows another. "Natural selection" is an interpretation that we relate too and not an omnious force.