Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[shunyadragon]

So randomness is real?

Careful what I describe in terms of the fractal nature of natural variation in the outcomes of events is not randomness.

I'm assuming that any starting conditions has a range of possible outcomes. Maybe a very narrow range but given enough time notable differences would appear.

The range of outcomes is narrow. For example: Even though no two tiger strips are alike, no two tiger will have the exact same strips

Obviously two parents could have very different offsprings.

No.

If it were possible to duplicate the same birthing circumstances exactly. There would still be differences in the offspring from the first iteration and the offspring from the second iteration?

Example: Identical twins are not exactly identical due to the fractal nature of the outcome will always show subtle differences even though genetically exactly the same. The fingerprints will be different.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I don't.

If you wish to make a coherent argument or add to the discussion you do need to better.

I am neither Christian nor apologist.

Doesn't make any difference, and not the issue.

 

[gnostic]

I have to echo the famous Antony Flew who was an atheist philosopher before having to accept intelligence as the most reasonable understanding of DNA.

Atheist or not, atheism isn’t science, just as theism or deism or agnosticism are not science.

As to Antony Flew, him being a philosopher, don’t make authority in biology, nor the qualifications.

And I have told you before, Flew is a philosopher in religion, so I don’t really give crap what he has to say about science, biology or cosmology. He doesn’t have the expertise in areas that he comment on, regarding to science.

And he can believe in Intelligent Design if Flew like, but all he is doing is expressing his personal view, and personal view is scientific.

And Intelligent Design isn’t science. You don’t have evidences for ID, but I know from my experiences with you, that you think anecdotal evidences outweigh empirical evidences...which is another load of craps.

 

[gnostic]

It started with your misreading of Flew.

Part of your argument is the overstating of Flew's view of non-scientist philosopher.

I have told George something like that when he brought up Flew in another topic.

Flew’s interests in philosophy in religion have no bearing in biology. Flew can only express his personal opinions, and nothing more than that, since he has no qualifications or experiences in science.

 

[George-ananda]

You can believe whatever you want, but belief is not science.

Actually, I agree with that. Science should remain agnostic to things it can't directly study at this time.

I for one, consider more than science in forming my personal thoughts on reality and the OP question. Nothing wrong with that.

And my personal reflections lead me to believe that these amazing body and brains built from microscopic DNA coding is not just the result of random happenstance. Something beyond science's ability to directly study at this time is involved is my considered personal opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, I agree with that. Science should remain agnostic to things it can't directly study at this time.

I for one, consider more than science in forming my personal thoughts on reality and the OP question. Nothing wrong with that.

And my personal reflections lead me to believe that these amazing body and brains built from microscopic DNA coding is not just the result of random happenstance. Something beyond science's ability to directly study at this time is involved is my considered personal opinion.

My only objection here is your use of 'not just the result of random happenstance.' Nothing in our physical existence is known to be caused by 'random happenstance,' This is a bogus 'Intelligence Design' scam and not science.

 

[George-ananda]

My only objection here is your use of 'not just the result of random happenstance.' Nothing in our physical existence is known to be caused by 'random happenstance,' This is a bogus 'Intelligence Design' scam and not science.

So what additional factor am I missing? Maybe we are understanding the word bappenstance differently? Without conscious volition I call it happenstance.

 

[Audie]

So what additional factor am I missing? Maybe we are understanding the word bappenstance differently? Without conscious volition I call it happenstance.

Try this, serious question.

It it mere random happenstance, random chance
that enables your car to run? Why or why not?

 

[Yerda]

Think about your body and the millions of processes that go on. Now build a molecule that can contain building instructions for all that.

The point is that the truly mind-boggling complexity of even a single eukaryotic cell can arise from a simple blueprint. From simple rules unpredictably complex effects can arise.

Only life with DNA can do this.

Do what? Self-replicate?

 

[George-ananda]

Try this, serious question.

It it mere random happenstance, random chance
that enables your car to run? Why or why not?

No, it was the good work of the designers and builders.

 

[Audie]

No, it was the good work of the designers and builders.

Come now. You are telling me that no vital aspect of the
car operates at some level on total random chance?

 

[George-ananda]

The point is that the truly mind-boggling complexity of even a single eukaryotic cell can arise from a simple blueprint. From simple rules unpredictably complex effects can arise.

I understand and I never said it iwas impossible for the complexity of life to have formed through happenstance alone just that it seemed only a very remote possibility in my (and Flew’s) mind.

 

[George-ananda]

Come now. You are telling me that no vital aspect of the
car operates at some level on total random chance?

You lost me there, sorry.

 

[Audie]

I understand and I never said it iwas impossible for the complexity of life to have formed through happenstance alone just that it seemed only a very remote possibility in my (and Flew’s) mind.

And I am sure anyone skilled in the art would agree.

But see, that is a false argument.

NOBODY but a creationist arguing against
ToE would ever even suggest "happenstance alone".

(Flew, not skilled in the art, it is kind of
clutching at straws to bring in a theist
philosopher to do your science for you,
just to get it to comd out the way you want)

 

[George-ananda]

And I am sure anyone skilled in the art would agree.

But see, that is a false argument.

NOBODY but a creationist arguing against
ToE would ever even suggest "happenstance alone".

(Flew, not skilled in the art, it is kind of
clutching at straws to bring in a theist
philosopher to do your science for you,
just to get it to comd out the way you want)

See my post 627 in response to our friend Shunya who kind of said the same thing. I haven’t received an answer yet.

 

[Audie]

You lost me there, sorry.

Ok...I dont know your bsckground in chem / physics.

In your car, the molecules of octane, heptane etc
are not arranged in an orderly way. Which ones
enter the combustion chamber, how they are positioned
relative to eachother, how they are rotated and of course,
the same for the oxygen molecules, all random. Likewise
the brownian motion that keeps them condstantly changing
position. You know all that? Of course you do.

You speak of random chance in evolution.

Can you identify some random things that affect it?

Some non- random ones?



,

 

[George-ananda]

Ok...I dont know your bsckground in chem / physics.

In your car, the molecules of octane, heptane etc
are not arranged in an orderly way. Which ones
enter the combustion chamber, how they are positioned
relative to eachother, how they are rotated and of course,
the same for the oxygen molecules, all random. Likewise
the brownian motion that keeps them condstantly changing
position. You know all that? Of course you do.

You speak of random chance in evolution.

Can you identify some random things that affect it?

Some non- random ones?



,

As I said already, if it doesn’t involve conscious volition it is all happenstance in the grand picture.

 

[Audie]

See my post 627 in response to our friend Shunya who kind of said the same thing. I haven’t received an answer

Not much the same.

In the event, I am trying to steer you to an understanding that
there isnt a black white thing, either has to be blind random chance, or god.

Sure there is random. In your car too.

But order has the most interesting ways of emerging
from chaos.

 

[George-ananda]

Where I am I calling anything God? That’s another discussion. I said conscious volition.

 

[Audie]

As I said already, if it doesn’t involve conscious volition it is all happenstance in the grand picture.

Ok, we know you said it, but all it is is your opinion based on what, emotion?
Sure is not data.

You did not say anything abour what is random and what
is not, in ToE which is actuslly something on topic,
not god or grand picture. Its ok if you dont know,
just say so.

Grand picture is an undefined term. Plz dont introduce same
w/o some explanation esp if tossed in, as evidently here,
like it is some final winning card.