Evolution is not random -here's why

[Cooky]

Just to prove how boring I am, the name of that particular form of reasoning is called "an argument from incredulity", and it is a recognized fallacy of logic. Doesn't mean his conclusion is false -- it might be false (most likely, in my opinion), or it might be true -- but it does mean that his argument is not a good argument for believing his conclusion.

You probably already knew all that though.

This is why I never get invited to parties.

Regardless, thanks for the contribution.

...But hey, at least it wasn't "Divine Fallacy".

 

[HonestJoe]

...Because it's impossible that 6 or 7 different species developed "flight" independently and separate from one another.

Evolution isn't random, it's influenced by environment and all of those species evolved in the same general environment.

The development of flying dinosaurs and modern birds aren't necessarily entirely independent since there is a likely line from one two the other.

Several of those examples aren't really flight and most of them operate in entirely different ways. To me that indicates a lack of common influence rather than the opposite.

 

[Salvador]

Evolution is simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.

Of course, there's nothing random about the mechanisms that make evolution work by way of favorable genetic traits due to mutations more likely getting passed along to the next generation, natural selection, genetic drifting, or gene flow.

 

[shunyadragon]

But the mutations didn't occur overnight. It would have taken a millions of years for the flying squirrel to have had flappy, unflyable skin turn into something useful.

...Same with all the rest who forfeited their front limbs. And for feathers to have coincidentally developed, I can only imagine wings would have only been advantageous for slapping prey around. But even that does not seem advantageous.

You answered your own questions it did not occur over night it took millions of years. The fossil evidence of birds from avian dinosaurs, which evolved from non-avian dinosaurs. The transition species and sub-species is very detailed over millions of years. I posted several threads that deal with this evolution. For rodents it not a difficult evolution from tree dwelling rodents that jump from tree to tree, to avoid predators.

 

[shunyadragon]

So is it impossible that animals had ancient genes from their common finned ancestors, and those genes merely refreshed? If that makes any sense.. Do you know what I mean?

View attachment 26014

I know it means you have a very limited or no knowledge of the science of evolution, and genetics, and you have a religious Intelligent Design agenda.

 

[Revoltingest]

....there's nothing random about the mechanisms that make evolution work.....

I disagree with completely eliminating the random element.
Mutations, environmental catastrophes, continental drift....these are all random inputs.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just to prove how boring I am, the name of that particular form of reasoning is called "an argument from incredulity", and it is a recognized fallacy of logic. Doesn't mean his conclusion is false -- it might be false (most likely, in my opinion), or it might be true -- but it does mean that his argument is not a good argument for believing his conclusion.

You probably already knew all that though.

This is why I never get invited to parties.

I fully agree, and I'll be sure to invite you to my next party.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree with completely eliminating the random element.
Mutations, environmental catastrophes, continental drift....these are all random inputs.

It depends on how you define 'random.' What you describe are events of known cause and consequences, and even though they influence evolution, they are not causative elements of evolution.

Randomness whether it exists or not is not a causative factor, and neither is the more accurate fractal variation in the occurrences and outcomes of mutations in evolution. Physical Laws are the determining factors in the outcomes through the environment and organic chemistry.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

...Because it's impossible that 6 or 7 different species developed "flight" independently and separate from one another.

Please forgive me for saying so, but that statement about what is possible and what isn't is completely ignorant. Eyes have evolved many times, in many different ways, to accomplish essentially the same thing.

Leibniz and Newton invented calculus entirely independently of one another, and at around the same time. Shouldn't that be "impossible," too?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe it's called "convergent evolution". I find it extremely bazaar and highly unlikely. So unlikely, that it is impossible. It should be clear that mutations are not random, but are based on environmental needs. Somehow.

The fact that you ended with "Somehow," really does suggest that you have no interest in finding out how, but would prefer to simply believe in the impossibility. That's too bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

It depends on how you define 'random.' What you describe are events of known cause and consequences, and even though they influence evolution, they are not causative elements of evolution.

No single element in any stochastic process is sole "cause" of the emergent properties.
The fitness function acts upon random inputs.
But consider mutations due to background radiation....these are random inputs in the process.

Randomness whether it exists or not is not a causative factor, and neither is the more accurate fractal variation in the occurrences and outcomes of mutations in evolution. Physical Laws are the determining factors in the outcomes through the environment and organic chemistry.

Physical laws are of course operative.
But nonetheless, random inputs play a role in stochastic
processes, which yield non-random emergent properties.
These might be useful to you....
Stochastic process - Wikipedia
Transition between Stochastic Evolution and Deterministic Evolution in the Presence of Selection: General Theory and Application to Virology

Creationists are wont to claim evolution is impossible because a purely
random process cannot generate such complexity of life. But facing
the existence of random inputs doesn't give them any ammunition.
It's the combination of random change & the fitness function which
give rise to evolution.
If you claim that the inputs are not random, then whence do they
originate? Divine guidance? Nah, I don't see that as useful.

 

[Salvador]

I disagree with completely eliminating the random element.
Mutations, environmental catastrophes, continental drift....these are all random inputs.

Most new mutations are going to become lost due to their rareness (even if the mutations are beneficial); however, very small effects on reproduction or survival may greatly impact the long-term rates at which various mutations accumulate in particular genes and at particular sites within genes. This results in a pattern of evolutionary change that appears nonrandom and is actually nonrandom; some sites rarely change, others change occasionally, while others change relatively more often.

 

[Jumi]

If you play a bit of cards, you'll think getting lucky means something or being unlucky means another. Is it rigged or is something supernatural going on? If you play a lot of cards you'll get used to streaks of whatever happening. Is it random? What people commonly feel incredible becomes much less by knowing any topic well...

 

[Revoltingest]

Mutations or environmental changes are random, but everything that happens after genetic change is non-random.

No, there are random inputs afterwards too, eg,
meteor strikes, interactions with environment.
So it's still a non-random process with random inputs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Mutations or environmental changes are random, but everything that happens after genetic change is non-random.

But since the genetic change itself was random, the resulting cascade of difference is, in fact, randomly caused.

If George Bailey hadn't been born, the world would have been a very different place than if he had. But if his birth was essentially random (and after all, who can tell which sperm would be the winner, meaning this too, is essentially random) then "It's a Wonderful Life" can make at least a little sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please forgive me for saying so, but that statement about what is possible and what isn't is completely ignorant. Eyes have evolved many times, in many different ways, to accomplish essentially the same thing.

Leibniz and Newton invented calculus entirely independently of one another, and at around the same time. Shouldn't that be "impossible," too?

IOW, you don't buy the argument of incredulity, eh.
I agree.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

IOW, you don't buy the argument of incredulity, eh.
I agree.

Been surprised far too many times to buy the argument from incredulity, as I've no doubt you have. I attempt to get around my surprise by learning a bit more each day.

Although surprises can be fun, too....

 

[Valjean]

I'd expect anything as mind bogglingly useful as navigating land, water or air would give rise to any number of different biological mechanisms to accomplish this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Been surprised far too many times to buy the argument from incredulity, as I've no doubt you have. I attempt to get around my surprise by learning a bit more each day.

Although surprises can be fun, too....

If our reality is designed, then the singular obvious purpose is to confound us.

 

[Salvador]

But since the genetic change itself was random, the resulting cascade of difference is, in fact, randomly caused.

If George Bailey hadn't been born, the world would have been a very different place than if he had. But if his birth was essentially random (and after all, who can tell which sperm would be the winner, meaning this too, is essentially random) then "It's a Wonderful Life" can make at least a little sense.

Most new mutations are going to become lost due to their rareness (even if the mutations are beneficial); however, very small effects on reproduction or survival may greatly impact the long-term rates at which various mutations accumulate in particular genes and at particular sites within genes. This results in a pattern of evolutionary change that appears nonrandom and is actually nonrandom; some sites rarely change, others change occasionally, while others change relatively more often.