Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[ImmortalFlame]

Not unconditionally... micro evolution maybe, not macro.

What percentage of scientists do not believe in macro-evolution?

No, just a lot of evidence, like the Cambrian Explosion.

How does the Cambrian Explosion support creationism?

The lack of agreement among scientists regarding the specifics of CD evolution (its mechanisms and other details) is astounding, some discussions almost lead to physical confrontations! I’ve observed it!

How does lack of agreement among scientists on the specifics of evolution support creationism?

Saying “Macro evolution happens....we just don't know how it occurs or what starts it", doesn’t encourage trust.

Good thing we don't have to say that, then. Also, how does anyone saying this support creationism?

You may call it an "argument from incredulity," but really, stating that functional complexity has an intelligent source, is an argument based on experience and observation. Other fields of science -- archaeology, etc. -- accept that (it's the scientific method) ....except biology and it's supporting theories.

So how many times have you or anyone else experienced or observed life developing from a purely creative, non-biological process?

 

[Audie]

What percentage of scientists do not believe in macro-evolution?


How does the Cambrian Explosion support creationism?


How does lack of agreement among scientists on the specifics of evolution support creationism?


Good thing we don't have to say that, then. Also, how does anyone saying this support creationism?


So how many times have you or anyone else experienced or observed life developing from a purely creative, non-biological process?

What percentage of scientists do not believe in macro-evolution?

Actually-what difference does it make if there are 88 or 99?

As long as they can offer not one scrap of data for their opinion, it is
of no interest or value.

And once it comes out that every flippin' one of them is a creationist
and like our famed paleontologist Dr. K Wise says, to paraphrase-
"evidence makes no difference, I believe what the bible seems to say."

Once that is clear, not much they say about anything is of much value.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The lack of agreement among scientists regarding the specifics of CD evolution (its mechanisms and other details) is astounding, some discussions almost lead to physical confrontations! I’ve observed it!

This is a really strange statement. We are told by creationists all of the time that scientists are close minded which is why they won't accept creationism. We are now being told that they don't trust scientists because they are open minded and have open and heated debates. So which is it?

You may call it an "argument from incredulity," but really, stating that functional complexity has an intelligent source, is an argument based on experience and observation. Other fields of science -- archaeology, etc. -- accept that (it's the scientific method) ....except biology and it's supporting theories.

We know from experience and observation that the mechanisms of evolution (e.g. random mutation, selection, vertical inheritance, and speciation) produce nested hierarchies. We observe that complex eukaryotes fall into a nested hierarchy with respect to morphology and genetics. We also observe that the DNA sequence differences between species matches the differences we would expect to see from observed mechanisms of random mutation. For example, we observe that CpG substitution mutations are the most common mutations in lab experiments and when sequencing genomes of parents and offspring. We also observe that these differences are the most common differences when we compare genomes between different species, such as humans and chimps.

So why shouldn't we conclude that species evolved when all of the observations we have are consistent with evolutionary mechanisms?

 

[Jose Fly]

This is a really strange statement. We are told by creationists all of the time that scientists are close minded which is why they won't accept creationism. We are now being told that they don't trust scientists because they are open minded and have open and heated debates. So which is it?

It's amusing, isn't it? I guess we can throw that on the rather large pile with all the other self-contradictory arguments creationists make.

One of my favorites is how they complain about scientists overselling evolution as a fact, but then when given scientific papers they pick out tentative language such as "likely" and "seemingly" and use it as an excuse to say "they're not even sure".

You could almost conclude that creationists will complain about science no matter what......

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You could almost conclude that creationists will complain about science no matter what......

For all of their talk, the main YEC argument is against the very practice of science. They are anti-intellectual and anti-science because both knowledge and facts run counter to their beliefs.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Face it 'Guy' your living 13th century monastery based on your personal religious agenda,



You may used it in system design and your high school lab experiments, but randomness is not observed in the processes that involve evolution. The science of evolution is based on the pre-determined parameters of Natural Law, which is sufficient to be based sound science.

I agree with Berkeley, and most main stream academia on what the theory claims here, but I think we agree, it's not actually random,

Mutations are random

"Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

Does not remotely apply to the science of evolution.

DNA happens to also be an uncannily computer like digital information system, but this paradox is it's inherent to any hierarchical information system,

Your pre-14th century personal religious agenda has nothing to do with modern science.

Give up the ghost, and admit your a Christian evangelical Creationist.

sticks and stones, Lemaitre was mocked as a religious pseudo-scientist, so I take it as a compliment- 'creationists' have a pretty good track record on being 'bang on' about these things!

Once again, if you ever have any substantive counter arguments, I'd be happy to hear them

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I agree with Berkeley, and most main stream academia on what the theory claims here, but I think we agree, it's not actually random,

Mutations are random

"Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

Do you think the processes that produce mutations are able to determine which mutations are beneficial and increase the rate at which those mutations occur?

DNA happens to also be an uncannily computer like digital information system, but this paradox is it's inherent to any hierarchical information system,

How is DNA different from any other molecule in this sense?

sticks and stones, Lemaitre was mocked as a religious pseudo-scientist, so I take it as a compliment- 'creationists' have a pretty good track record on being 'bang on' about these things!

Once again, if you ever have any substantive counter arguments, I'd be happy to hear them

People mock clowns, too.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah! Good! You thank God!



This is an other Fundamentalist Theist claim. It is like blaming the the hundreds of thousands of deaths due to nuclear weapons on Albert Einstein.

Scientists that have develop and falsify the basic sciences, including the science of evolution are not responsible for the misuse of the sciences for selfish immoral purposes.

Exactly, and Einstein himself considered what he helped create, a menace to society

Atomic energy at least provides an alternate power source- whether it's on balance- a good or bad thing we can debate.

Darwinism unambiguously inspired horrors of eugenics, which I'm sure Darwin likewise did not intend. But I am asking if, like nuclear energy, there is any hypothetical upside to the adoption of the theory?


The fundamental difference being that good or bad, nuclear power is demonstrable science, Darwinism obviously aint-
but philosophical speculation and beliefs can have real world consequences, especially where their followers cry 'undeniable truth!'

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Darwinism unambiguously inspired horrors of eugenics, which I'm sure Darwin likewise did not intend. But I am asking if, like nuclear energy, there is any hypothetical upside to the adoption of the theory?

Darwinism does no such thing. Nowhere in the theory does it say that anyone should be prevented from having children.

 

[Jose Fly]

For all of their talk, the main YEC argument is against the very practice of science. They are anti-intellectual and anti-science because both knowledge and facts run counter to their beliefs.

Exactly as reflected in "Answers in Genesis'" Statement of Faith...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.​

That's about as anti-scientific a framework could be, and pretty much every creationist utilizes it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Do you think the processes that produce mutations are able to determine which mutations are beneficial and increase the rate at which those mutations occur?

good question

Not necessarily in the sense of 'every day' mutations- if you randomly alter the parameters that determine the size, shape, color of text in your forum post, you have a decent chance of achieving viable results- that may then be 'naturally selected' for the best combination. And so too with life, where mutations are restricted to a limit range of viable options- beak sizes, color pigment in moth wings etc..

But as above, you can never author new software this way, that has to be predetermined by more specific guiding instructions.


aka irreducible complexity- you can alter the shape and color of an eye with random variation, but you cannot create one

How is DNA different from any other molecule in this sense?

In one sense it is not- i.e. all physics, chemistry, space/time matter/energy operates by a hierarchical information system-

i.e. you cannot explain gravity with classical physics, for the same reason you cannot explain evolution with adaptation, both are trying to extrapolate a feature of a design, into being a design mechanism.. for that very same feature.. it don't work!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Darwinism does no such thing. Nowhere in the theory does it say that anyone should be prevented from having children.

It does not explicitly incite no, but it unambiguously inspired, if you appreciate the difference.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It does not explicitly incite no, but it unambiguously inspired, if you appreciate the difference.

That's like saying the Germ Theory of Disease inspires people to mail anthrax to people they don't like.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

good question

Not necessarily in the sense of 'every day' mutations- if you randomly alter the parameters that determine the size, shape, color of text in your forum post, you have a decent chance of achieving viable results- that may then be 'naturally selected' for the best combination. And so too with life, where mutations are restricted to a limit range of viable options- beak sizes, color pigment in moth wings etc..

But as above, you can never author new software this way, that has to be predetermined by more specific guiding instructions.

All species use the same "software", so I don't see how that is a problem.

aka irreducible complexity- you can alter the shape and color of an eye with random variation, but you cannot create one

I don't understand this one. First off, the eye isn't irreducibly complex. There are species just have a photosensitive spot and it functions as an eye. You don't need a lens or aperture for an eye to have function.

Second, I don't see how irreducible complexity is a problem for evolution to begin with. In fact, irreducible complexity was predicted to be a possible outcome of evolutionary mechanisms almost 100 years ago:

""... an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary."
Muller, H. J. (1939) "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280.

In one sense it is not- i.e. all physics, chemistry, space/time matter/energy operates by a hierarchical information system-

i.e. you cannot explain gravity with classical physics, for the same reason you cannot explain evolution with adaptation, both are trying to extrapolate a feature of a design, into being a design mechanism.. for that very same feature.. it don't work!

That makes no sense. How in the world is classical physics or the theory of evolution trying to "extrapolate a feature of a design into being a design mechanism"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's like saying the Germ Theory of Disease inspires people to mail anthrax to people they don't like.

Possibly yes, and Henry Ford inspired a lot of people to drive recklessly causing much death and injury right? But cars, Germ theory, nuclear physics have their useful practical applications which give them net benefit- (nuclear energy is debatable perhaps?)


The question was, what practical use has Darwin's theory of evolution contributed, that counters all the horrors of eugenics it inspired? it not meant to be rhetorical, just wondering what folks might think about that

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Possibly yes, and Henry Ford inspired a lot of people to drive recklessly causing much death and injury right? But cars, Germ theory, nuclear physics have their useful practical applications which give them net benefit- (nuclear energy is debatable perhaps?)


The question was, what practical use has Darwin's theory of evolution contributed, that counters all the horrors of eugenics it inspired? it not meant to be rhetorical, just wondering what folks might think about that

Darwin's theory didn't inspire eugenics any more than atomic theory inspired scientists to drop bombs on people. People were already xenophobic and racist.

 

[Jose Fly]

'creationists' have a pretty good track record on being 'bang on' about these things!

That's hilarious, given that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding of the world in about 200 years or so.

Darwinism unambiguously inspired horrors of eugenics

Every time I see this from creationists, I never understand what point they're trying to make. "Darwinism inspired eugenics, therefore.........."?

Obviously it can't be that it somehow reflects on evolutionary biology itself, because that opens the door to Christianity being evaluated on the same grounds. So what exactly is their point?

The question was, what practical use has Darwin's theory of evolution contributed

Phylogenomics Applied Evolution

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All species use the same "software", so I don't see how that is a problem.

That is a possibility being considered, that all the necessary information is essentially pre-existing in some form, and merely triggered/expressed- eg. epigenetics, to produce different body plans as needed. that would explain explosively abrupt appearances in the fossil record, vast periods of stasis etc- and it's far from the fundamental Darwinian model of creating entirely new body plans through utterly random changes. - that is highly problematic

I don't understand this one. First off, the eye isn't irreducibly complex. There are species just have a photosensitive spot and it functions as an eye. You don't need a lens or aperture for an eye to have function.

how does just a photosensitive spot function as an eye?

That makes no sense. How in the world is classical physics or the theory of evolution trying to "extrapolate a feature of a design into being a design mechanism"?

physical apples still fall from trees post quantum mechanics, and genetic apples likewise fall not far from their trees.

The problem is taking such superficial observations, and presenting them as a comprehensive explanations - e.g. all physical reality can be explained by a handful of simple 'immutable' laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in.. This was the model of reality Darwinism was born into >150 years ago, and was a perfectly logical extension of it back then

Concepts of 'mysterious unpredictable guiding forces' underlying such simple observable phenomena like gravity- was once considered religious pseudoscience also.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Darwin's theory didn't inspire eugenics any more than atomic theory inspired scientists to drop bombs on people. People were already xenophobic and racist.

Eugenics - Wikipedia
The idea of a modern project of improving the human population through a statistical understanding of heredity used to encourage good breeding was originally developed by Francis Galton and, initially, was closely linked to Darwinism and his theory of natural selection.[16] Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. Based on his biographical studies, Galton believed that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits"


it's not really all that controversial a connection

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

That is a possibility being considered, that all the necessary information is essentially pre-existing in some form, and merely triggered/expressed- eg. epigenetics, to produce different body plans as needed. that would explain explosively abrupt appearances in the fossil record, vast periods of stasis etc- and it's far from the fundamental Darwinian model of creating entirely new body plans through utterly random changes. - that is highly problematic

All species use the same genetic hardware such as ribosomes, transfer RNA's, and so forth. That is what I was referring to.

Also, epigenetics is not capable of producing the diversity we see among species. Epigenetics won't allow a bird to give birth to a coyote, as one example.

how does just a photosensitive spot function as an eye?

It detects light in a way that allows the animal to make judgements, such as moving into areas with shade or moving into sunlight to allow for more photosynthesis. Even an indented eyespot allows for crude system that allows the animal to detect which direction light is coming from, as is the case for planaria:

physical apples still fall from trees post quantum mechanics, and genetic apples likewise fall not far from their trees.

Drop and roll a few million times and you can move quite a distance.

The problem is taking such superficial observations, and presenting them as a comprehensive explanations - e.g. all physical reality can be explained by a handful of simple 'immutable' laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in.. This was the model of reality Darwinism was born into >150 years ago, and was a perfectly logical extension of it back then

Concepts of 'mysterious unpredictable guiding forces' underlying such simple observable phenomena like gravity- was once considered religious pseudoscience also.

Calling science a religion doesn't make the facts go away.