Does natural selection require mutation?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Also, your whole idea of an intelligent designer, besides being devoid of ANY proof, does not really answer any questions, does it? We just don't need it. LOL. In fact, I think it poses more questions, i.e. "who created the Designer?"

People have designed cars, this is a fact. A designer requires a designer. Therefore people must have been designed.

It is a logical error. A designer does not require to be designed. Not according to evolution theory, and not according to ID theory either.

In ID theory the act of designing occurs through the agency of decisions. Agency is a subjective isssue. Hence ID theorists believe in the existence of the human soul of the car designer, which soul does the act of choosing by which the car is designed. So you see even for simple human design that we can see happening now ID theory still relies on faith.

There is no other subjective issue besides the issue of what the agency of a decision is. If you reject agency as a subjective issue, you have discarded all subjectivity. To say what is "beautiful" and such, are also statements about agency. The word "beautiful" refers to a love of the way something looks. Love is agency of a decision.

Creationism is the only philosophy which validates both fact and opinion (faith, beauty and such), each in their own right. Materialism for example, only validates facts. In materialism the word beauty does exist, but the word does not refer to anything. There is no material thing that consists of beauty.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

People have designed cars, this is a fact. A designer requires a designer. Therefore people must have been designed.

It is a logical error. A designer does not require to be designed. Not according to evolution theory, and not according to ID theory either.

In ID theory the act of designing occurs through the agency of decisions. Agency is a subjective isssue. Hence ID theorists believe in the existence of the human soul of the car designer, which soul does the act of choosing by which the car is designed. So you see even for simple human design that we can see happening now ID theory still relies on faith.

There is no other subjective issue besides the issue of what the agency of a decision is. If you reject agency as a subjective issue, you have discarded all subjectivity. To say what is "beautiful" and such, are also statements about agency. The word "beautiful" refers to a love of the way something looks. Love is agency of a decision.

Creationism is the only philosophy which validates both fact and opinion (faith, beauty and such), each in their own right. Materialism for example, only validates facts. In materialism the word beauty does exist, but the word does not refer to anything. There is no material thing that consists of beauty.

Wrong.

Unlike a car, life was not manmade. Thus it requires no designer.

Example: if your grow osme mold in a petri dish, is it designed?

I would say no.

Life began much the same way, in the Hot Soup some 3 BYA. Single-celled microbes.

I know you IDers believe in the Soul. But that does nothing to bolster your argument for a designer. There is zero proof of the soul...neurologists and psychologists can explain all the aspects of the human brain which imbues us with sentience, self-awareness. Biology explains life. Thus, no "soul" nor a Designer is necessary.

Except for those who do not understand the Materialist explanation for life. Just because your belief in the soul comforts you, it does not make it so.

And just because you cannot fathom the nuances of evolution of the human brain, and why the evolved brain often causes folks to seek reasons and patterns for things that are indeed random and purely physical, also does not make a case for your Soul.

This is called, in rhetoric and debate arenas, an "argument from incredulity." And it really carries no weight. Let alone proof.

Hope this helps.


http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/you...cience_that_debunks_superstitious_charlatans/

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

that's just one side of the probability equation, in reality we must consider both sides to arrive at the most likely explanation

This is clearly, obviously, and even by definition wrong. It's an EQUATION. That means both sides are the same.

i.e. the odds of a gambler being dealt 3 royal flushes in a row, are over a hundred million trillion to one.

Yet of course being dealt even 100 royal flushes in a row, is no less likely than any particular sequence of 500 cards being dealt.

But it assumes a dealer.

So by your 'logic', if you work in the fraud dept at the casino- and a guy is dealt nothing but royal flushes all night, you tell your boss that there is no reason to suspect cheating

Wrong. Because I don't assume the naïve definition of probability or even the frequentist interpretation. To explain, a common set of interpretations of probability hold that the reason a flip of a coin has 1/2 probability of heads and of tails is because you have no justification for asserting the coin is (or the flip, or the coin and flipping are) biased. After a million flips of heads, we should suspect a biased coin.
But my reasoning is simply (and the first response demonstrated perfectly what I meant) that we are wont to see design and causality when none exists, because we are particularly poor when it comes to formal reasoning.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wrong.

Unlike a car, life was not manmade. Thus it requires no designer.

Example: if your grow osme mold in a petri dish, is it designed?

I would say no.

Life began much the same way, in the Hot Soup some 3 BYA. Single-celled microbes.

I know you IDers believe in the Soul. But that does nothing to bolster your argument for a designer. There is zero proof of the soul...neurologists and psychologists can explain all the aspects of the human brain which imbues us with sentience, self-awareness. Biology explains life. Thus, no "soul" nor a Designer is necessary.

Except for those who do not understand the Materialist explanation for life. Just because your belief in the soul comforts you, it does not make it so.

And just because you cannot fathom the nuances of evolution of the human brain, and why the evolved brain often causes folks to seek reasons and patterns for things that are indeed random and purely physical, also does not make a case for your Soul.

This is called, in rhetoric and debate arenas, an "argument from incredulity." And it really carries no weight. Let alone proof.

Hope this helps.


http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/you...cience_that_debunks_superstitious_charlatans/

Wrong.

Unlike a car, life was not manmade. Thus it requires no designer.

Example: if your grow osme mold in a petri dish, is it designed?

I would say no.

Life began much the same way, in the Hot Soup some 3 BYA. Single-celled microbes.

I know you IDers believe in the Soul. But that does nothing to bolster your argument for a designer. There is zero proof of the soul...neurologists and psychologists can explain all the aspects of the human brain which imbues us with sentience, self-awareness. Biology explains life. Thus, no "soul" nor a Designer is necessary.

Except for those who do not understand the Materialist explanation for life. Just because your belief in the soul comforts you, it does not make it so.

And just because you cannot fathom the nuances of evolution of the human brain, and why the evolved brain often causes folks to seek reasons and patterns for things that are indeed random and purely physical, also does not make a case for your Soul.

This is called, in rhetoric and debate arenas, an "argument from incredulity." And it really carries no weight. Let alone proof.

Hope this helps.


http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/you...cience_that_debunks_superstitious_charlatans/

You have understood nothing. You are defacto rejecting subjectivity . Indeed there is no proof of beauty nor of the soul. Creationism validates subjectivity. You compete objectivity against subjectivity, to the destruction of subjectivity.

Subjectivity, expression of emotions, saying what is beautiful or ugly, is an inherently creationist concept.

Beauty has no meaning in materialism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

After a million flips of heads, we should suspect a biased coin.

Why? As you pointed out, a million flips of heads is no more improbable than any particular random combination is it?

So why apply a double standard to a coin and the universe?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

i.e. the odds of a gambler being dealt 3 royal flushes in a row, are over a hundred million trillion to one.

Actually, the odds of a royal flush is 1:649,739. And because dealing cards from hand-to-hand is an independent event, if you get one royal flush the odds of you getting one on the next hand is 1:649,739.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, the odds of a royal flush is 1:649,739. And because dealing cards from hand-to-hand is an independent event, if you get one royal flush the odds of you getting one on the next hand is 1:649,739.

right, 1 in 649,739 every time, so the odds compound/ multiply themselves per additional royal flush.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

right, 1 in 649,739 every time, so the odds compound/ multiply themselves per additional royal flush.

No, it doesn't. Because the cards are inserted back into the deck and shuffled, the events are independent of each other. This means that even if you hit 10 royal flushes in a row, the odds of the eleventh is still 1:649,739.
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/le...y/probability/further_concepts_in_probability
Independent Events

When two events are said to be independent of each other, what this means is that the probability that one event occurs in no way affects the probability of the other event occurring. An example of two independent events is as follows; say you rolled a die and flipped a coin. The probability of getting any number face on the die in no way influences the probability of getting a head or a tail on the coin.

Dependent Events

When two events are said to be dependent, the probability of one event occurring influences the likelihood of the other event.

For example, if you were to draw a two cards from a deck of 52 cards. If on your first draw you had an ace and you put that aside, the probability of drawing an ace on the second draw is greatly changed because you drew an ace the first time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why? As you pointed out, a million flips of heads is no more improbable than any particular random combination is it?

Because we don't expect any particular sequence, but rather that the probability that any out of all sequences should be higher the closer it is to a distribution of half heads and half tails.
Put differently, we shouldn't expect any particular sequence, but should expect to find a bunch of heads and of tails (we should expect something like what naïve probability tells us- flips that yield both heads and tails and both approximately half of the time).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

right, 1 in 649,739 every time, so the odds compound/ multiply themselves per additional royal flush.

But the odds are conditional. There are a limited number of possible combinations of dealt cards (and we require dealt cards), we require that the dealt cards for each additional royal flush be randomly distributed (given the finite possibilities) for each such that the odds are independent, etc.

Basically, given a lottery in which a trillion tickets are distributed to individuals on the condition that one is the winner, the odds of anybody winning is basically nil but the odds of someone winning is assured. You don't distinguish between these kinds of probabilities in your arguments (and probability is, actually, FAR more subtle and nuanced).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it doesn't. Because the cards are inserted back into the deck and shuffled, the events are independent of each other. This means that even if you hit 10 royal flushes in a row, the odds of the eleventh is still 1:649,739.
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/le...y/probability/further_concepts_in_probability
Independent Events

When two events are said to be independent of each other, what this means is that the probability that one event occurs in no way affects the probability of the other event occurring. An example of two independent events is as follows; say you rolled a die and flipped a coin. The probability of getting any number face on the die in no way influences the probability of getting a head or a tail on the coin.

Dependent Events

When two events are said to be dependent, the probability of one event occurring influences the likelihood of the other event.

For example, if you were to draw a two cards from a deck of 52 cards. If on your first draw you had an ace and you put that aside, the probability of drawing an ace on the second draw is greatly changed because you drew an ace the first time.

way too much effort on a very simple principle here

If you don't believe me, try flipping a coin,

heads is 50:50 because there are only two possible outcomes H or T
Now flip twice, what are the odds of getting two heads in a row? 1 in 4. because HH is one of 4 possible outcomes for the two flips
HH HT TH or TT
in three flips, 3 heads in a row is one of 8 possible outcomes
HHH HHT HTT HTH
TTT TTH THH THT
You see?


So even though the odds of one royal flush is a mere 1:649,739
the odds of three in a row are roughly 1: in a gabillion

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But the odds are conditional. There are a limited number of possible combinations of dealt cards (and we require dealt cards), we require that the dealt cards for each additional royal flush be randomly distributed (given the finite possibilities) for each such that the odds are independent, etc.

Basically, given a lottery in which a trillion tickets are distributed to individuals on the condition that one is the winner, the odds of anybody winning is basically nil but the odds of someone winning is assured. You don't distinguish between these kinds of probabilities in your arguments (and probability is, actually, FAR more subtle and nuanced).

We both, and everybody else agrees here, if a coin turns up heads a million times, or someone gets 10 royal flushes in a row, or wins the lottery 10 times in a row-

we'd be nuts to conclude random chance. even though technically- none of these outcomes are any less likely to occur by chance than any other, correct?

So where is the disconnect between the theory and reality? The theory overlooks other superior explanations. i.e. creative meddling

So too with life. If the singularity was an entirely random composition, we might argue that, accidentally developing it's own consciousness to ponder itself with- was no more staggeringly improbable than the infinite number of random useless dark cold lifeless blobs we'd rather 'expect'- just as we'd usually 'expect' a meaningless combination of heads/tails crappy poker hands and unconnected lottery winners.

The odds of chance in the examples are staggeringly low, and all equally staggering low, we all get that. But creative intelligence wins because it's odds are NOT as staggeringly low, so they become superior explanations.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We both, and everybody else agrees here, if a coin turns up heads a million times, or someone gets 10 royal flushes in a row, or wins the lottery 10 times in a row-

we'd be nuts to conclude random chance.

Out of curiosity, what are non-random chances?

even though technically- none of these outcomes are any less likely to occur by chance than any other, correct?

Not correct. Although to be fair, this leaves the realm of pure mathematics and enters into the philosophy of probability, which isn't remotely straightforward nor does there exist any universal approach among either scientists or philosophers.

So where is the disconnect between the theory and reality?

I would LOVE to tell you. The problem is that we don't know the nature of the connection between theory and reality.

The theory overlooks other superior explanations. i.e. creative meddling

I can speculate that I exist, and be VERY confident. I can speculate that unicorns exist, and be far less so. If one equates theory and speculation, one must still deal with the consequences of the evidence for one's position.

If the singularity was an entirely random composition, we might argue that, accidentally developing it's own consciousness to ponder itself with- was no more staggeringly improbable than the infinite number of random useless dark cold lifeless blobs we'd rather 'expect'

Why would we expect the big bang? And, granting it happened, why should we expect that our staggeringly improbable state of affairs was anything other than a necessary outcome given the big bang (the same way that, given a googol fair coin tosses, we'd expect a distribution of fairly equal heads and tails)?

 

[ScottySatan]

Mutations aren't required, heritable change is. Without heritable change, every individual would be mostly the same, with nothing to select for.

Heritable changes can be epigenetic, where the DNA does not change. Epigenetic change tends to be temporary or reversible.

Then there are changes to genetic code. This can happen by mutations, or by larger scale changes like recombination, for example, via viral infection or sexual reproduction.

Most people talking about mutations are thinking about something called a SNP ("snip") randomly located; which has been calculated to be too slow to account for the observed rate of evolutionary change. However, if you take into account the dozen or so other known methods of heritable change, it works out just fine.

 

[chlotilde]

I would guess that over 90% of all professional Biologists agree that the driving genetic mutations behind the Evolutionary Process are indeed totally random.

.

I know you just pulled 90% out of the air, but the genetic code is now sequenced to the point where biologists are studying the patterns of mutations.