Earth and life, is it predetermined or accidentally developed?

[Subduction Zone]

They were naturally selected because they have succeeded to evolve,
mutations which is random is what makes them change.

mutations are not all that random. Since evolution involved populations the sort of variation that will occur is predictable.

perhaps you should try to define the terms that you are using. Right now it seems as if you call that which you do not understand "random".

 

[FearGod]

But your option in the poll at the head of this thread was...
I believe it was due to a collection of accidental events
...that does not reflect what you are now saying!

I chose " I believe it was predetermined"

 

[FearGod]

mutations are not all that random. Since evolution involved populations the sort of variation that will occur is predictable.

perhaps you should try to define the terms that you are using. Right now it seems as if you call that which you do not understand "random".

Mutations are random, where is the misunderstanding in it?

 

[Altfish]

I chose " I believe it was predetermined"

Yes, but I didn't. Because it isn't. There is no 'end goal' for evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mutations are random, where is the misunderstanding in it?

Only on an individual level. That is your misunderstanding. We are not dealing with individuals, evolution deals with populations.

 

[FearGod]

Yes, but I didn't. Because it isn't. There is no 'end goal' for evolution.

If you can prove that it wasn't predetermined then please do.

 

[FearGod]

Only on an individual level. That is your misunderstanding. We are not dealing with individuals, evolution deals with populations.

And populations consist of individuals, where's the problem?

 

[Altfish]

If you can prove that it wasn't predetermined then please do.

And how would one do that? It is like saying 'prove there is no god' you can't do it.

If it were predetermined we would know what is likely to be the next development in a species, we don't. We can guess, but if the environmental conditions change then so will the evolutionary outcome.
For example take humans. It is a fair assumption that humans will tend to get taller and their brains larger (Although if creationism grows that may need a new look at!) because those traits have been successful in the gene pool. But if food were to become scarce then a taller body may be a detrimental gene as it needs more food to sustain.

 

[FearGod]

And how would one do that? It is like saying 'prove there is no god' you can't do it.

If it were predetermined we would know what is likely to be the next development in a species, we don't. We can guess, but if the environmental conditions change then so will the evolutionary outcome.
For example take humans. It is a fair assumption that humans will tend to get taller and their brains larger (Although if creationism grows that may need a new look at!) because those traits have been successful in the gene pool. But if food were to become scarce then a taller body may be a detrimental gene as it needs more food to sustain.

You believe that environmental conditions which is all about chances that may
cause changes in species by time, otherwise if it was predetermined then
we should be able to know exactly what will be the next development in the species.

Do you think that's an evidence that earth and life were products of chances?

 

[wellwisher]

Life on earth was predetermined based on the potentials that are inherit within the atoms of the periodic table. For example, if you react oxygen and hydrogen they will form water. This is not random or accidental but is inherent within their chemical properties, and is therefore predetermined even before they meet and react.

In our universe, hydrogen, helium and oxygen are the three most common atoms. The hydrogen molecule; H2, the water molecule; H2O and the carbon monoxide molecule; CO, are three most common molecule in the universe. In these three, we have what is needed for solar fusion and photosynthesis. Life formed from the bounty of the universe.

The Miller–Urey experiment, done in the 1950's, was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth. They started with simples molecules like carbon monoxide, water, hydrogen and ammonia and reacted them with an electric spark. The electric spark was to simulate lightning generated by water in thunder storms. The result was they were able to make all the animo acids needed for life, plus extra ones life does no even need in the present. The chemical potential in these simple molecules, make this possible, and reproducible in the lab. It is predetermined. We need to figure out the right conditions to take advantage of the potentials.

The problem science has, is they have taken a wrong path. They depend too much on random because they fail to see the correct potentials in the atoms and molecules, especially water. They tend to believe in a god of random mythology, which is a god of lottery, dice and cards. Dice and card are manmade and are not natural.

 

[Altfish]

You believe that environmental conditions which is all about chances that may
cause changes in species by time, otherwise if it was predetermined then
we should be able to know exactly what will be the next development in the species.

Do you think that's an evidence that earth and life were products of chances?

Many environmental changes are being brought about by humans, that is not down to 'chance'. The famously described changes of the colour of the peppered moth was down to pollution.
In the UK Seagulls, Magpies and other scavengers are being very successful because they feed on man's waste food. Other birds and animals are struggling due to farming techniques, especially the chemicals which are sprayed on crops.

 

[Altfish]

Life on earth was predetermined based on the potentials that are inherit within the atoms of the periodic table. For example, if you react oxygen and hydrogen they will form water. This is not random or accidental but is inherent within their chemical properties, and is therefore predetermined even before they meet and react.

Not necessarily, they can and do form Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) - so predetermined it is not.

And the rest of your argument therefore falls apart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And populations consist of individuals, where's the problem?

If you cannot follow a conversation what good would an explanation do?

 

[FearGod]

Many environmental changes are being brought about by humans, that is not down to 'chance'. The famously described changes of the colour of the peppered moth was down to pollution.
In the UK Seagulls, Magpies and other scavengers are being very successful because they feed on man's waste food. Other birds and animals are struggling due to farming techniques, especially the chemicals which are sprayed on crops.

Whereas all species were evolved millions of years ago by random chances.

 

[Altfish]

The problem science has, is they have taken a wrong path. They depend too much on random because they fail to see the correct potentials in the atoms and molecules, especially water. They tend to believe in a god of random mythology, which is a god of lottery, dice and cards. Dice and card are manmade and are not natural.

I await your paper on this subject which if true should win you a Nobel Prize.

 

[FearGod]

If you cannot follow a conversation what good would an explanation do?

If it makes sense then I'll.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whereas all species were evolved millions of years ago by random chances.

So you are back to the "I don't know" definition of random chances. That is a rather strange definition.

 

[Altfish]

Whereas all species were evolved millions of years ago by random chances.

NO!!!!
How many times do we have to say it wasn't 'random' or 'accidental' - what is it you don't understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it makes sense then I'll.

No, seriously it does not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

NO!!!!
How many times do we have to say it wasn't 'random' or 'accidental' - what is it you don't understand?

Everything?