How the chickens learned the need to sit on it's eggs ?

[Alceste]

Do i have to repeat myself,i said we can observe god's effect for all things around us.
should i mention them all,i'll count some

1 - creation of the sun,moon and other planets,stars...etc
2 - creation of all living things
3 - creation of plants

God isn't a teapot because the teapot is a material which doesn't have any effect that can be observed,the same thing for the silly analogies of the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster which is a material things but for God we can observe his power and the well design of the universe,God didn't say,i am living in the moon or i am flying here or there



i understand 2 things and you have to choose one which fits evolution.

A - Well planned and designed.
B - Randomness and chances

if not planned and designed then it should be "B"

To help you to understand then i'll give you an example

Was it planned and designed that we can speak and think or we have it by chance.

(Feel free to copy and paste, folks.)

EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOMNESS AND CHANCES.

 

[FearGod]

(Feel free to copy and paste, folks.)

EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOMNESS AND CHANCES.

So if not a random mutations and chances then it was planned and designed.

 

[Alceste]

So if not a random mutations and chances then it was planned and designed.

"So if a falling book isn't going in a random direction, God must be pushing it to the ground."

 

[secret2]

So if not a random mutations and chances then it was planned and designed.

Can you please focus for one ******* ******* nano-second and read this once again: "a thing is either random or planned for is a false dichotomy"

 

[chinu]

Hi chinu!

God taught them?
OK..... so why didn't God teach our Dolly-Duck? She usually lays eggs just anywhere and wanders off, or lays ten as a clutch, sits them for a couple of weeks and then wanders off, just before they could have hatched.

Got it! Dolly is an atheist!

Some people use to pray at home, and some go to church, temple etc..

So, you are getting something wrong Mr Badger, Dolly doesn't wanders off, she just go the temple for prayers

Still, if you have any doubt, than ask Mrs badger, she will make you understand, because am sure she's more theistical than you.

 

[apophenia]

OK, at great risk to my beloved credibility , I am going to support Fear God here. Kind of ... (Actually I do not have any credibility to lose in this regard, I profess no more than the average person's grasp of the theory of evolution. I have never studied the subject formally).

There is a very real sense in which evolution is randomness and chance as I understand it.

Evolution is the process of successful mutations - successful in the sense of being advantageous under the prevailing conditions.

However, according to the theory, the mutations were not planned. They were not the result of any form of intention. There is no mechanism which generates mutation as a strategy to enhance adaptation.

Does anyone here know how and why mutations occur ?

I have either assumed, or at some time read (can't remember), that the mutations can be the result of transcription errors, or genes damaged in some way. I have no idea if that is correct, so maybe someone may like to chime in here and explain the cause/mechanism of mutations.

Why is everyone asserting that the mutation itself is not chance ?

Sure, once a mutation occurs which bestows an advantage, it is obvious that the advantage will then be passed on to subsequent generations.

If the mutation is not chance, please describe exactly how mutations come about. That seems to be missing in this debate.

*prepares himself for flaming and various forms of public humiliation, likely including being written off as a closet theist *

 

[apophenia]

My limited understanding includes a general (read superficial )idea of how genetic algorithms work in the field of computer programming.

Small snippets of code are randomly combined and mutated until an algorithm is produced which efficiently performs the required function. (That is an oversimplification, but this is not a thread about advanced computing techniques).

This seems similar to the process of evolution. It certainly includes what can be called randomness and chance.

I mention it to encourage a more useful way of discussing this than throwing feces.

Genetic algorithm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FearGod]

"So if a falling book isn't going in a random direction, God must be pushing it to the ground."

But the falling book didn't fall by itself,there was a plan,there was a causer that someone had threw it,you have neglected the causative but observing the outcome of it as to be randomness.

 

[secret2]

OK, at great risk to my beloved credibility , I am going to support Fear God here. Kind of ... (Actually I do not have any credibility to lose in this regard, I profess no more than the average person's grasp of the theory of evolution. I have never studied the subject formally).

There is a very real sense in which evolution is randomness and chance as I understand it.

Evolution is the process of successful mutations - successful in the sense of being advantageous under the prevailing conditions.

However, according to the theory, the mutations were not planned. They were not the result of any form of intention. There is no mechanism which generates mutation as a strategy to enhance adaptation.

Does anyone here know how and why mutations occur ?

I have either assumed, or at some time read (can't remember), that the mutations can be the result of transcription errors, or genes damaged in some way. I have no idea if that is correct, so maybe someone may like to chime in here and explain the cause/mechanism of mutations.

Why is everyone asserting that the mutation itself is not chance ?

Sure, once a mutation occurs which bestows an advantage, it is obvious that the advantage will then be passed on to subsequent generations.

If the mutation is not chance, please describe exactly how mutations come about. That seems to be missing in this debate.

*prepares himself for flaming and various forms of public humiliation, likely including being written off as a closet theist *

What you said is correct (except where you claim that "everyone is asserting that the mutation itself is not chance") but irrelevant to this thread, where FearGod wants to argue along the lines of "tornado blowing through scrapyard" and "monkey typing Shakespeare."

 

[apophenia]

What you said is correct (except where you claim that "everyone is asserting that the mutation itself is not chance") but irrelevant to this thread, where FearGod wants to argue along the lines of "tornado blowing through scrapyard" and "monkey typing Shakespeare."

Just a little nudge to remind you that there is a bit of a feeding frenzy happening.

I could easily imagine many of you arguing that evolution is randomness and chance in another context.

Integrity please.

 

[fantome profane]

Just a little nudge to remind you that there is a bit of a feeding frenzy happening.

I could easily imagine many of you arguing that evolution is randomness and chance in another context.

Integrity please.

If you are going to accuse people of lacking integrity all I would ask that you be more specific. Who said what?

 

[apophenia]

If you are going to accuse people of lacking integrity all I would ask that you be more specific. Who said what?

I was specific. My meaning was transparent. Each contributor can decide for themself if my remark is relevant to them. I'm not interested in dragging a red herring across the purple thread. My remark was about the gist of what is being discussed, and how it is being discussed. Read it for yourself. If you think my post misses the mark, fine, say so.


Now perhaps you could answer a question from me - does mutation involve randomness and chance ?

 

[HonestJoe]

There is a very real sense in which evolution is randomness and chance as I understand it.

People are explaining this really poorly yet it is very simple; The development of genetic mutations is random. The survival and propagation of those mutations via natural selection is not random. The key word in the statement being made is just; Evolution is not just randomness and chance.

The more significant point though is that just because something isn't random doesn't automatically mean it is intelligently designed. The fundamental natural laws of the universe which mean things occur in a predictable pattern could perfectly easily exist without a creator being.

(All without getting in to complications of what "random" actually means!)

 

[apophenia]

People are explaining this really poorly yet it is very simple; The development of genetic mutations is random.

Precisely

The survival and propagation of those mutations via natural selection is not random. The key word in the statement being made is just; Evolution is not just randomness and chance.

The more significant point though is that just because something isn't random doesn't automatically mean it is intelligently designed. The fundamental natural laws of the universe which mean things occur in a predictable pattern could perfectly easily exist without a creator being.

(All without getting in to complications of what "random" actually means!)

Good on ya Joe.
Fair enough.

Just what I said (the bolded part)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do i have to repeat myself,i said we can observe god's effect for all things around us.
should i mention them all,i'll count some

1 - creation of the sun,moon and other planets,stars...etc
2 - creation of all living things
3 - creation of plants

And how can you demonstrate that God is the cause of these things when all of them have a perfectly viable non-God related origin?

It's not enough to just say something, you have to demonstrate it.

God isn't a teapot because the teapot is a material which doesn't have any effect that can be observed,the same thing for the silly analogies of the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster which is a material things but for God we can observe his power and the well design of the universe,God didn't say,i am living in the moon or i am flying here or there

But anyone could just as easily say that the creation of the sun, moon and other planets, etc. were down to the tea pot or the invisible pink unicorn of the flying spaghetti monster. We can attribute whatever we want to them, and you can't disprove the claims until you demonstrate that these things do not exist - which is entirely the point of the analogy.

i understand 2 things and you have to choose one which fits evolution.

A - Well planned and designed.
B - Randomness and chances

if not planned and designed then it should be "B"

WRONG.

Something can still be "selective" without being planned or designed by some outside force. This point is entirely asinine and you would know that if you understood how natural selection actually works. Do I really have to explain this to you AGAIN??

If you had a brother who was, due to a mutation, a good foot taller than you and you both tried out for a basketball team and he got in, because of his height, was that selection "entirely random" because the mutation which made him taller than you was random? No. It was because of that mutation that he was selected, and in exactly the same way the mutations involved in natural selection are random but only the ones which produce increased survivability for that particular population are successful and spread. Thus a random effect becomes selected. There is no consciousness which "decides" which mutations survive and which ones don't, but the natural order of things - as well as basic logic - determines that beneficial survival traits will tend to flourish more than neutral or negative survival traits. It's really as simple as "mutations which make it more likely to survive will it make it more likely to survive". If you admit that, then you admit that natural selection is not random.

A child could understand this. Why are you having so much difficulty with it?

To help you to understand then i'll give you an example

Was it planned and designed that we can speak and think or we have it by chance.

Neither. We have it through natural selection, which is the natural gathering of beneficial mutations over time through countless generations resulting in the formation of new traits and characteristics.

Stop presenting this false dichotomy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK, at great risk to my beloved credibility , I am going to support Fear God here. Kind of ... (Actually I do not have any credibility to lose in this regard, I profess no more than the average person's grasp of the theory of evolution. I have never studied the subject formally).

There is a very real sense in which evolution is randomness and chance as I understand it.

Evolution is the process of successful mutations - successful in the sense of being advantageous under the prevailing conditions.

However, according to the theory, the mutations were not planned. They were not the result of any form of intention. There is no mechanism which generates mutation as a strategy to enhance adaptation.

Does anyone here know how and why mutations occur ?

I have either assumed, or at some time read (can't remember), that the mutations can be the result of transcription errors, or genes damaged in some way. I have no idea if that is correct, so maybe someone may like to chime in here and explain the cause/mechanism of mutations.

Why is everyone asserting that the mutation itself is not chance ?

Nobody has.

And thank you very much for confusing this issue.

 

[chinu]

How the chickens learned the need to sit on it's eggs ?

Chickens thought, as their babies are featherless so far, they might feeling cold.

 

[apophenia]

Nobody has.

And thank you very much for confusing this issue.

Get over it.

Various posts were made (check for yourself if you've forgotten) telling Fear God that evolution is not randomness and chance.

I pointed out that in fact it is, in the sense that a crucial notion of the theory of evolution is mutation - which is, as has now been agreed, randomness and chance.

I did not confuse the issue at all - I clarified it.

Obviously Fear God was not the buffoon he was being made out to be by stating that evolution is randomness and chance.

I don't agree with him that a 'designer' is required.

When it is raining, there is no 'rainer'; similarly there is no 'evolver'.

We can now proceed having established that a central mechanism of evolution (mutation) is randomness and chance.

How does that confuse the issue ? It makes it clear that Fear God simply needs to restate his proposition as "mutation is randomness and chance". Which, IMO, is what he meant anyway.

OK ?

 

[FearGod]

And how can you demonstrate that God is the cause of these things when all of them have a perfectly viable non-God related origin?

It's not enough to just say something, you have to demonstrate it.

it isn't my problem if you need to see god by your eyes doing stuff in order for you to believe,but for me i realize him by his signs which make sense to me than the random mutations.

[youtube]sCn5uvvc3WE[/youtube]
How the Body Works : The Digestive System - YouTube

But anyone could just as easily say that the creation of the sun, moon and other planets, etc. were down to the tea pot or the invisible pink unicorn of the flying spaghetti monster. We can attribute whatever we want to them, and you can't disprove the claims until you demonstrate that these things do not exist - which is entirely the point of the analogy.

Yes because you want to see god doing stuff and not realizing his power and effect around us.

[youtube]K-2LhltFzaU[/youtube]
convert to islam story...funny yet amazing - YouTube

WRONG.

Something can still be "selective" without being planned or designed by some outside force. This point is entirely asinine and you would know that if you understood how natural selection actually works. Do I really have to explain this to you AGAIN??

If you had a brother who was, due to a mutation, a good foot taller than you and you both tried out for a basketball team and he got in, because of his height, was that selection "entirely random" because the mutation which made him taller than you was random? No. It was because of that mutation that he was selected, and in exactly the same way the mutations involved in natural selection are random but only the ones which produce increased survivability for that particular population are successful and spread. Thus a random effect becomes selected. There is no consciousness which "decides" which mutations survive and which ones don't, but the natural order of things - as well as basic logic - determines that beneficial survival traits will tend to flourish more than neutral or negative survival traits. It's really as simple as "mutations which make it more likely to survive will it make it more likely to survive". If you admit that, then you admit that natural selection is not random.

A child could understand this. Why are you having so much difficulty with it?

Because aint a child,but yes the child can understand such nonsense.:yes:

The species always do survive and the ancestors lived millions of years before tiny gradual progression occurred,so your reasoning that nature favor reproduction and survival is wrong because the species was always reproducing and surviving otherwise there will be no evolution.

So if we talk a bout natural selection as for the better ones then we are speaking about a wise ******* intelligent universe and which is not.

Just you need to imagine and analyze things in your mind.

Neither. We have it through natural selection, which is the natural gathering of beneficial mutations over time through countless generations resulting in the formation of new traits and characteristics.

Stop presenting this false dichotomy.

Why i have to stop ?

Now back to my question in the thread.

How the first chicken have such an instinct (knowledge) to sit on its eggs,do you explain it also by random mutation through millions of years,how did they survive till the right mutation arrived.

 

[chinu]

Now back to my question in the thread.

How the first chicken have such an instinct (knowledge) to sit on its eggs

Chickens thought, as their eggs are featherless, so their babies might feeling cold inside the egg.