Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[Thermos aquaticus]

Nobody can demonstrate a single cell morphing into a human through purely random copying errors

No one is claiming that a single cell morphed into a human. The theory of evolution states that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.

we can demonstrate that the fossil record does not reflect what the theory predicted, that lab experiments cannot reproduce macro evolution, nor can computer models even simulate it.

We already have those experiments. They are all of the species we see around us. Nature has already done these experiments for us, and the record of those experiments are found in the genomes of living species and in the fossils found in the geologic record.

But we can demonstrate one solution for some very tricky problems- a method by which hierarchical digital information systems can be originated and made to produce predetermined emergent properties, and that is through creative intelligence.

Biology doesn't have computer code.

Also, computer code doesn't fall into a nested hierarchy. Genomes do. It is the nested hierarchy which evidences evolution and disproves intelligent design.

 

[Audie]

That's the analogy fallacy. DNA isn't computer software so the argument falls on its face.



Now you are talking about a probability but I don't see any maths. Where are the maths?



As far as light detection goes, yes it is just a light sensitive spot. In Euglena there is no aperature, no lens, and no central nervous system. Eyes are not irreducibly complex.

"In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"



No, they don't. There are plenty of single celled organisms without eyes that have functioning flagella.

The eye isn't irreducibly complex.

Among the oddities of the creationist grasp of biology /evolution is the
way they keep bringing up "fully functioning" or, "fully formed".

They never can explain what they mean by it though. Or why animals from the Cambrian, say, being fully formed is some how a big prob for ToE.

Like this re eyespot on microbe thing..

you don't have a fully functioning eye.

A paramecium does not even have an eye spot, but it is photosensitive.
They move away from light. That is fully functioning, for them.

Trying to talk biology to someone who doesnt even know intro to remedial
bio 101 takes a lot of back up and explain!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Among the oddities of the creationist grasp of biology /evolution is the
way they keep bringing up "fully functioning" or, "fully formed".

They never can explain what they mean by it though. Or why animals from the Cambrian, say, being fully formed is some how a big prob for ToE.

Like this re eyespot on microbe thing..

you don't have a fully functioning eye.

A paramecium does not even have an eye spot, but it is photosensitive.
They move away from light. That is fully functioning, for them.

Trying to talk biology to someone who doesnt even know intro to remedial
bio 101 takes a lot of back up and explain!

Indeed. "Fully formed" and "fully functioning" are just prejudices reworded to sound more sciency. They want to claim that an eye can't work without a pupil, lens, and central nervous system. When shown an eye that lacks all of those things they still claim it is fully formed. It makes no sense.

 

[Audie]

No one is claiming that a single cell morphed into a human. The theory of evolution states that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.
.

You are leaving out something that our creationists dont understand at all.
They get high centered on the thing about going from single cell to multicellular organisms. Like that is a "leap" with no intermediary,
and obviously impossible.

Here is a start, in plants. Each cell can live independently but it is advantageous for them to grow as if one multicellular organism.

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/imgsep09/Fig6.JPG

Of course, that is just high school biology to learn that.

Or here is a sponge. Definitely muylticellular, acts as one animal.

But each cell is capable of performing any of the functions, transforming from one type to another. It is a colony of individuals, not an individual animal.

Any one cell can grow into a new sponge. High school biology.

http://mrsdmarine.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/5/7/21574882/2556696.jpg?531

A cell did not as you note, "morph" into a human. That is a very crude and
false idea about evolution. But hey, without wrong ideas, they would have no ideas at all, right?

Single cell organism do / did begin to form into cooperative colonies.
And from there into more complex forms, and...

 

[Audie]

Indeed. "Fully formed" and "fully functioning" are just prejudices reworded to sound more sciency. They want to claim that an eye can't work without a pupil, lens, and central nervous system. When shown an eye that lacks all of those things they still claim it is fully formed. It makes no sense.

Ah so desu ka, the essence of creationist arguments!

 

[gnostic]

I've certainly answered this one before a few times, maybe just for people who were asking nicely!

Like most, my money would be on God, hardly a controversial position.. but not the only one

Dawkins considers alien intelligence a possibility (not where his money is obviously), & atheist Hoyle considered a 'super intellect'

If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...

— Fred Hoyle[29]

Do you really think I give a rat’s a55 what Hoyle have to say on.

He is average astrophysicist, a failed cosmologist. His only contribution to science is on Stellar Nucleosynthesis, but everything else in science have been unimpressive.

As to Hoyle being an atheist, do you really think I give a flying crap about him being atheist.

What I would like is that stop equating science with atheism. It is nothing but straw man, and dishonest tactics.

Do grow up, Guy, please.

 

[Audie]

No, he was a Christian and we all know the attitude Christians have had against Jews for thousands of years.
Christianity and antisemitism - Wikipedia
Christians were killing Jews long before Darwin.

Oh, I am not going to blame the Christians for his behaviour any more than I would Darwin.

The idea of selective breeding deeply predates Darwin. As does racism.

To the extent that evolution may have been mentioned or involved in
eugenics / hitler, it requires that a person work with a very shallow and
ill considered notion of what evolution is about, in order to come up with
what they did.

Using it in any degree for an excuse to to what they had chosen to do regardless is of course not quite intellectually honest, but hey.
It is as honest as is the creationist claim that "Darwinsim" led to hitler and eugenics.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's the analogy fallacy. DNA isn't computer software so the argument falls on its face.

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”: Bill gates

The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal: Richard Dawkins


other than being obvious biological by definition, it's hard to imagine how much more like computer software (and hardware) DNA could possibly be.

But that's not even the point, the flaw is inherent to hierarchical information systems- regardless of software-

e.g. a radio provides for adaptation variation, but twiddling the dials for a trillion years can never turn it into a CD player

Now you are talking about a probability but I don't see any maths. Where are the maths?

the improbability of chancing upon basic protein chains required for life for a start, the numbers are beyond astronomical

As far as light detection goes, yes it is just a light sensitive spot. In Euglena there is no aperature, no lens, and no central nervous system. Eyes are not irreducibly complex.

"In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"



No, they don't. There are plenty of single celled organisms without eyes that have functioning flagella.




The eye isn't irreducibly complex.

all these describe a fully functional eye of some kind, which requires several integrated components, it can't all come together in one copying error event- far less in many different species coincidentally- obviously once granted an eye, you can adapt different shapes, nobody debates that-

It's just one obvious example of irreducible complexity, It's not even that controversial these days, even evolutionary biologists have to resort to hypothetical exaptation and co-option- where separate components are 'evolved' separately and then just happen to be assembled, but chopping the odds up doesn't improve them

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That would be an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.

by which definition, concluding that the Rosetta Stone required an intelligent agent is also an argument from ignorance- no, we have no idea how natural forces could possibly have produced this either,

You claim that life requires a vast amount of preexisting specified information, yet present no evidence to support the claim.

random mutations cannot produce the new information required, this is a mathematical problem that could not be simulated in Darwin's day- even if they did know about DNA /protein chains etc evolutionary biologists have to settle for a lot of info fluking itself into existence one way or another, but they don't dispute that it is required

Watches don't reproduce, so they aren't a valid analogy.

forms better adapted to various environments, survive longer and in greater numbers to be reproduced in future generations- survival of the fittest right?

but am I talking about life or watches? I don't know either, whether or not watches fall in love and get married makes no difference to the algorithm

 

[Audie]

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”: Bill gates

The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal: Richard Dawkins


other than being obvious biological by definition, it's hard to imagine how much more like computer software (and hardware) DNA could possibly be.

But that's not even the point, the flaw is inherent to hierarchical information systems- regardless of software-

e.g. a radio provides for adaptation variation, but twiddling the dials for a trillion years can never turn it into a CD player




the improbability of chancing upon basic protein chains required for life for a start, the numbers are beyond astronomical



all these describe a fully functional eye of some kind, which requires several integrated components, it can't all come together in one copying error event- far less in many different species coincidentally- obviously once granted an eye, you can adapt different shapes, nobody debates that-

It's just one obvious example of irreducible complexity, It's not even that controversial these days, even evolutionary biologists have to resort to hypothetical exaptation and co-option- where separate components are 'evolved' separately and then just happen to be assembled, but chopping the odds up doesn't improve them

The brain of a coconut crab is far more advanced than any computer.

So.....?

fully functional eye of some kind, which requires several integrated components, it can't all come together in one copying error


The very simple "eye" of ye amoeba is fully functional. The eye of the
planaria is fully functional. Same with any other flippin' eye that has not
been damaged.

Why do you keep trotting out that nonsense?

The "come together in one copying error" is about as silly a strawman as
we have seen.

Your last paragraph is just made up bs.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

by which definition, concluding that the Rosetta Stone required an intelligent agent is also an argument from ignorance- no, we have no idea how natural forces could possibly have produced this either,

"I don't know how nature could have done it, so it must have been an intelligent designer" is an argument from ignorance.

random mutations cannot produce the new information required,

Yet another claim devoid of evidence.

forms better adapted to various environments, survive longer and in greater numbers to be reproduced in future generations- survival of the fittest right?

but am I talking about life or watches? I don't know either, whether or not watches fall in love and get married makes no difference to the algorithm

Using an object that doesn't evolve to try and falsify evolution just doesn't work.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”: Bill gates

And Bill Gates is wrong. Do you really think that "because Bill Gates says so" is a valid argument?

other than being obvious biological by definition, it's hard to imagine how much more like computer software (and hardware) DNA could possibly be.

Computer software doesn't bend itself into 3d shapes in order to function. DNA does. Computer software does not have proteins binding to it based on the physical characteristics of the code. DNA does. Computer software does not do well with random changes. DNA does.

e.g. a radio provides for adaptation variation, but twiddling the dials for a trillion years can never turn it into a CD player

Radios don't reproduce.

the improbability of chancing upon basic protein chains required for life for a start, the numbers are beyond astronomical

Where are the maths? Are proteins even needed for life to start? How many different proteins would allow for life to start? If you are going to make claims about probabilities, YOU NEED TO SHOW YOUR MATH!!!

all these describe a fully functional eye of some kind, which requires several integrated components, it can't all come together in one copying error event- far less in many different species coincidentally- obviously once granted an eye, you can adapt different shapes, nobody debates that-

"Fully functional" is meaningless because the function has changed in the past and can change in the future. It's like saying that the Earth has reached its final destination for every minute of the day.

It's just one obvious example of irreducible complexity, It's not even that controversial these days, even evolutionary biologists have to resort to hypothetical exaptation and co-option- where separate components are 'evolved' separately and then just happen to be assembled, but chopping the odds up doesn't improve them

The eye isn't irreducibly complex because there is function with pieces of the eye missing.

 

[Audie]

And Bill Gates is wrong. Do you really think that "because Bill Gates says so" is a valid argument?




Computer software doesn't bend itself into 3d shapes in order to function. DNA does. Computer software does not have proteins binding to it based on the physical characteristics of the code. DNA does. Computer software does not do well with random changes. DNA does.



Radios don't reproduce.



Where are the maths? Are proteins even needed for life to start? How many different proteins would allow for life to start? If you are going to make claims about probabilities, YOU NEED TO SHOW YOUR MATH!!!



"Fully functional" is meaningless because the function has changed in the past and can change in the future. It's like saying that the Earth has reached its final destination for every minute of the day.



The eye isn't irreducibly complex because there is function with pieces of the eye missing.

The mousetrap is not irreducibly complex either.

I wish the creos would ever come up with a potentially real issue,
that would at least be more interesting than the usual moldy pratts

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"I don't know how nature could have done it, so it must have been an intelligent designer" is an argument from ignorance.

as is 'I don't know how God could have done it, so nature musta done it'

But deducing an intelligent designer is an argument made in the affirmative, we DO know how original information systems are produced, and it ain't by chance.

Again this is not to say that natural processes cannot create information systems, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


.lots of artistic impressions of transitionals, along with lots of excuses for why they never showed up in the record, is not extraordinary evidence of anything but a fertile imagination

Using an object that doesn't evolve to try and falsify evolution just doesn't work.

we see a record of shared traits, some sudden appearances, gaps, jumps, stasis, some dead ends, vestigial features and even a few regressions. But a general trend towards increased sophistication of form and function.

am I describing the evolution of watches or the fossil record?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

as is 'I don't know how God could have done it, so nature musta done it'

That's not the argument. We can directly observe the mechanisms of evolution at work and predict what the genomes of species would look like if they were the result of those mechanisms acting in the past. We have direct evidence of these mechanisms.

But deducing an intelligent designer is an argument made in the affirmative, we DO know how original information systems are produced, and it ain't by chance.

We don't observe intelligent designers making organisms that fall into nested hierarchies. In fact, we observe intelligent designers creating organisms that clearly violate a nested hierarchy, such as GMOs. We do observe evolutionary mechanisms creating populations that fall into nested hierarchies.

.lots of artistic impressions of transitionals, along with lots of excuses for why they never showed up in the record, is not extraordinary evidence of anything but a fertile imagination

There are plenty of transitional fossils.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

we see a record of shared traits, some sudden appearances, gaps, jumps, stasis, some dead ends, vestigial features and even a few regressions. But a general trend towards increased sophistication of form and function.

The general trend is a nested hierarchy which is the fingerprint of evolution.

 

[Audie]

as is 'I don't know how God could have done it, so nature musta done it'

But deducing an intelligent designer is an argument made in the affirmative, we DO know how original information systems are produced, and it ain't by chance.

Again this is not to say that natural processes cannot create information systems, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


.lots of artistic impressions of transitionals, along with lots of excuses for why they never showed up in the record, is not extraordinary evidence of anything but a fertile imagination




we see a record of shared traits, some sudden appearances, gaps, jumps, stasis, some dead ends, vestigial features and even a few regressions. But a general trend towards increased sophistication of form and function.

am I describing the evolution of watches or the fossil record?

In general you describe what you do not know or understand.

"Jumps" and "sudden appearances" .

What do you suppose gives that impression?

It is not at all unusual for some creature to be known from only one
partial specimen.

None like it before none like it after, none anywhere but there.
No other pieces of it.

What reason might there be for that?

When there is a nice sequence of changes to be found in the fossil record, why, that does not count for anything?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And Bill Gates is wrong. Do you really think that "because Bill Gates says so" is a valid argument?

I agree with Bill Gates and Richard Dawkins on this, you may have more combined experience in both computer science and evolutionary biology than them both, but forgive me for not taking your word on this!

Computer software doesn't bend itself into 3d shapes in order to function. DNA does. Computer software does not have proteins binding to it based on the physical characteristics of the code. DNA does. Computer software does not do well with random changes. DNA does.

because you are talking about hardware now, physical forms, the machinery that is used to contain and process the software- and yes, they have 3D shapes.

Radios don't reproduce.

they are reproduced according to their success, with modifications where they help compete- they don't fall in love and get married no..

Where are the maths? Are proteins even needed for life to start? How many different proteins would allow for life to start? If you are going to make claims about probabilities, YOU NEED TO SHOW YOUR MATH!!!

I'm not making the claim that random copying errors produced all the changes needed to turn a single cell into a human being. extraordinary claims...

I accept the scientific results of computer models and lab tests, which cannot replicate macro evolution- only limited and specifically supported superficial variation.

"Fully functional" is meaningless because the function has changed in the past and can change in the future. It's like saying that the Earth has reached its final destination for every minute of the day.

it just means it works, irreducible complexity just means that if you take away one component it no longer does

 

[shunyadragon]

Therein lies the paradox unique to naturalism.. that the laws of nature can all ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws.

Actually, true, there is no known prior cause of the Laws of Nature. They are simply known to exist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In general you describe what you do not know or understand.

"Jumps" and "sudden appearances" .

What do you suppose gives that impression?

It is not at all unusual for some creature to be known from only one
partial specimen.

None like it before none like it after, none anywhere but there.
No other pieces of it.

What reason might there be for that?

When there is a nice sequence of changes to be found in the fossil record, why, that does not count for anything?

again; sudden appearances in the record, gaps, jumps, stasis, but a general progression towards increased sophistication over time-- what does it all suggest to you?

 

[Audie]

I agree with Bill Gates and Richard Dawkins on this, you may have more combined experience in both computer science and evolutionary biology than them both, but forgive me for not taking your word on this!

Huh. Now me, I take the word of the 99 percent or so of all scientists*, who
find the ToE to be sound. Now, while you consistently refrain from demonstrating even high school level grasp of basic biology, it may be that
you actually know more than any scientist on earth.

None of them know that ToE is false, but it seems you do.

Or not, that does snot seem likely. Do forgive me for my lack of confidence
and not taking your word for it.

*and of course, educated people world wide, scientists or not