Question About Evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

I know this is a stupid question, but bear with me here. This is not skepticism of any kind, but a mere question.

If a cause of natural selection is mutation, how would that work, if mutation is a random process? I'm stuck here. If natural selection is adaptation, then how could genetic mutation be a part in it if it's random? Thanks in advance.

No easy answer, that's one of the fundamental problems with the theory that's often glossed over.

Natural selection of a superior design... goes entirely without saying, it's why the Ford Mustang outlived the Ford Pinto

But in Darwinism, natural selection has no significantly improved adaptation to select, unless it first spontaneously materializes purely by chance.. that's the problematic part

 

[kaoticprofit]

The "cause" of a burrito is that people were hungry, and someone decided to make something to eat.

In the end, the example of a burrito has nothing to do with biological evolution, because a burrito is manufactured through the activity of humans, and we can observe it happening and do it ourselves. Your hypothetical burrito-without-a-visible-maker is just a bunch of hot air.

You're missing my point. Even my crab rangoon took a mind to make it, just like it took a mind to make the good and bad bacteria in your gut. It also took someone to plant a seed of grain, help it grow, harvest it, process it into flour, just to make a tortilla! My point is that everything that was made had a mind behind its creation. Good things like burritos don't just happen by a piece of seaweed that gets washed up on shore and a bird dumps on it, the sun hits hit, and it becomes something good! Everything has design and purpose. A watch and a calendar is a timepiece developed by the mind of man in accordance with what man sees in the heavens. Things are way too precise for them to be accidental. In my business of rebuilding diesel engines, things must be precise and in time, otherwise, things blow up! In evolution, things blew up FIRST, and then they became in time! I suppose evolutionist just can't see everything works "IN TIME!"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're missing my point. Even my crab rangoon took a mind to make it, just like it took a mind to make the good and bad bacteria in your gut. It also took someone to plant a seed of grain, help it grow, harvest it, process it into flour, just to make a tortilla! My point is that everything that was made had a mind behind its creation. Good things like burritos don't just happen by a piece of seaweed that gets washed up on shore and a bird dumps on it, the sun hits hit, and it becomes something good! Everything has design and purpose. A watch and a calendar is a timepiece developed by the mind of man in accordance with what man sees in the heavens. Things are way too precise for them to be accidental. In my business of rebuilding diesel engines, things must be precise and in time, otherwise, things blow up! In evolution, things blew up FIRST, and then they became in time! I suppose evolutionist just can't see everything works "IN TIME!"

yes, the 'accident' argument made a little more sense 150 years ago in Darwin's time, before subatomic physics, quantum mechanics, DNA.. the superficial observations of a well engineered universe, look relatively simple and obvious, by design, from the outside- just like a watch does. But the more we look under the hood, discover the engineering, the more improbable chance becomes-- to the point that many atheists are now forced to resort to an infinite probability machine (multiverse) that can make absolutely anything and everything appear spontaneously by chance,...

with one exception..

it has a safety mechanism preventing it from ever creating anything that could be called God, that would obviously defeat the purpose!

 

[columbus]

t's useless for me to get into these kind of discussions because I know where they go.....NOWHERE!

That's because your evidence is indistinguishable from any other unsupported assertions.
People do that all the time. From the mentally ill to prophets from other dramatically different religions to Republicans to feminazis.
I don't believe you know anything important about God because you can't say why I should believe your assertions about God.
Tom

 

[kaoticprofit]

That's because your evidence is indistinguishable from any other unsupported assertions.
People do that all the time. From the mentally ill to prophets from other dramatically different religions to Republicans to feminazis.
I don't believe you know anything important about God because you can't say why I should believe your assertions about God.
Tom

You don't know what I know about God so keep your unknown derogatory comments to yourself.

 

[columbus]

Not so. I just know better to than to waste my time discussing something with people I know will never change their mind.

Nonsense.
I change my mind frequently.
I do it whenever I get more or new information.
Yet another religionist making an unsupported assertion isn't new or different. Especially not when you grew up in Jesustan like I did.
Tom

 

[kaoticprofit]

Nonsense.
I change my mind frequently.
I do it whenever I get more or new information.
Yet another religionist making an unsupported assertion isn't new or different. Especially not when you grew up in Jesustan like I did.
Tom

I've been around the block a few times with people like you. I know what I'm up against. The typical human not only doesn't change their mind, they seldom admit making mistakes. I've been on forums for about 15 years now and have met only ONE person who admitting making a mitsake, and NONE who have ever changed their mind or at least publicly admitted it. After all, they would have to first admit they were wrong and made a mitsake!

 

[Ouroboros]

Kind of like my burrito that ended up on my plate without human intervention.,,,RIGHT? How else would humans know they were created by a creator if the creator didn't interact with God and document it?

So the universe and nature is a burrito? Interesting theory. So that means that a human made the universe. Cool. And completely nutty.

How do you expect God to reveal himself other than through what he's made...namely humans?

I expect your God, who is a separate entity from the creation, to be able to speak for himself.

If you expect God to speak through humans, then humans are part of God, and the step from that to that all things are part of God (pantheism) is a minor one.

If I create an anthill and two ants where these ants were designed to populate the hill and not die, and were told the colony would die if they ate something forbidden by me, what's the best way for me to interact with my creation? Answer? By becoming an ant!

So God became an ant, lion, dog, bear, tree, star, and hamburger? Cool. That means you're a pantheist. I am too.

Still, that doesn't answer "who created God?" And it's not a silly question. It's a serious question and the only answer you have is that you don't believe God need one.

 

[kaoticprofit]

So the universe and nature is a burrito? Interesting theory. So that means that a human made the universe. Cool. And completely nutty.


I expect your God, who is a separate entity from the creation, to be able to speak for himself.

If you expect God to speak through humans, then humans are part of God, and the step from that to that all things are part of God (pantheism) is a minor one.


So God became an ant, lion, dog, bear, tree, star, and hamburger? Cool. That means you're a pantheist. I am too.

I suppose the word comprehension isn't a word in your vocabulary. Sarcasm, it's what arrogance is all about.

 

[Ouroboros]

I've been on forums for about 15 years now and have met only ONE person who admitting making a mitsake, and NONE who have ever changed their mind or at least publicly admitted it. After all, they would have to first admit they were wrong and made a mitsake!

You're wrong. I've changed my mind many times and even admitted to it online in forums (probably 3-5 times on this forum), and even apologized at times.

I think you're just not paying attention to when people do it.

 

[Ouroboros]

I suppose the word comprehension isn't a word in your vocabulary. Sarcasm, it's what arrogance is all about.

...

Quite rude. You're going on my ignore. Bye!

 

[columbus]

I've been around the block a few times with people like you. I know what I'm up against. The typical human not only doesn't change their mind, they seldom admit making mistakes. I've been on forums for about 15 years now and have met only ONE person who admitting making a mitsake, and NONE who have ever changed their mind or at least publicly admitted it. After all, they would have to first admit they were wrong and made a mitsake!

What are you talking about? I change my mind all the time.
I voted for Obama because I didn't like Clinton. I've since come to realize how much more effective she would have been and regretted that. I've said so here on RF.
Tok

 

[Valjean]

I learned it in college too. Who created nature!

How are you defining "Nature," Kaotic? I think you may be moving the goal post.
Why does there need to be a 'who'? Aren't the existing laws of chemistry and physics enough -- or are you asking how the Universe and laws of physics came to be in the first place? If so, you've wandered pretty far from the original question of 'evolution'.

Who makes 1+1=2? Who makes water run downhill? Who makes objects attract other objects?
These things just are, it's how the universe is put together. No conscious personage is needed to magically manipulate things.

As for evolution, the mechanisms driving it are pretty clear. There's no need to posit any magical entity consciously altering its own laws of physics to effect some pre-planned end.

 

[Milton Platt]

I know this is a stupid question, but bear with me here. This is not skepticism of any kind, but a mere question.

If a cause of natural selection is mutation, how would that work, if mutation is a random process? I'm stuck here. If natural selection is adaptation, then how could genetic mutation be a part in it if it's random? Thanks in advance.

Define what you mean by mutation. Are you talking about minute changes in DNA? Are you talking about radical changes in the function or appearance of a species?

Evolution is driven by a number of things, not just random mutation.

 

[kaoticprofit]

How are you defining "Nature," Kaotic? I think you may be moving the goal post.
Why does there need to be a 'who'? Aren't the existing laws of chemistry and physics enough -- or are you asking how the Universe and laws of physics came to be in the first place? If so, you've wandered pretty far from the original question of 'evolution'.

Who makes 1+1=2? Who makes water run downhill? Who makes objects attract other objects?
These things just are, it's how the universe is put together. No conscious personage is needed to magically manipulate things.

As for evolution, the mechanisms driving it are pretty clear. There's no need to posit any magical entity consciously altering its own laws of physics to effect some pre-planned end.

Maybe the beef burrito I ordered that came back with chicken in it was made by a no mind human who magically manipulated the cow into a chicken.

 

[Milton Platt]

How did my burrito end up with chicken instead of beef when I ordered beef? I know. It was an uncontrolled big bang in the kitchen that went wrong. So what am I saying? You've said it yourself. A cow produces a cow because a cow can only produce a cow. That puts this mutation business to rest. Things that mutate don't improve. They typically degenerate. So mutation isn't a genuine form of creative progression.

You said "typically" as opposed to absolutely every time?????? All evolution is not a progression. sometimes it is a regression. It is controlled primarily, I think by environment. I can even end in total failure. you need to read some more. Or maybe read at all?

 

[kaoticprofit]

You said "typically" as opposed to absolutely every time?????? All evolution is not a progression. sometimes it is a regression. It is controlled primarily, I think by environment. I can even end in total failure. you need to read some more. Or maybe read at all?

Here we go with the derogatory sarcastic replies. I've probably sat on the toilet longer in my lifetime than you've ever read books and, my library is probably bigger than your ego.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe the beef burrito I ordered that came back with chicken in it was made by a no mind human who magically manipulated the cow into a chicken.

Evolution only works in where organisms reproduce and there is variety in the offspring. Burritos and watches are false analogies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A cow produces a cow because a cow can only produce a cow. That puts this mutation business to rest.

Actually, it doesn't, because after millions of years, these gradual changes add up enough to produce entirely new speciesl.

Things that mutate don't improve.

Actually, most mutations are not either beneficial or harmful. But, on occasion, they help or hurt an individual member of a species.

So mutation isn't a genuine form of creative progression.

What is this "creative progression?"

 

[Skwim]

I've been around the block a few times with people like you. I know what I'm up against. The typical human not only doesn't change their mind, they seldom admit making mistakes. I've been on forums for about 15 years now and have met only ONE person who admitting making a mitsake, and NONE who have ever changed their mind or at least publicly admitted it. After all, they would have to first admit they were wrong and made a mitsake!

But you've readily admitted the "mitsakes" you've made. Yah, sure.

Here we go with the derogatory sarcastic replies. I've probably sat on the toilet longer in my lifetime than you've ever read books and, my library is probably bigger than your ego.

A library of comic books really isn't that impressive.

And FYI to say, "my library is probably bigger than your ego" is more likely to be taken as a compliment than not. In any event, the point here isn't the quantity of books one reads but their relevance/quality, and what one gets out of them, the lack of which is demonstrated by your following remark.

"How did my burrito end up with chicken instead of beef when I ordered beef? I know. It was an uncontrolled big bang in the kitchen that went wrong. So what am I saying? You've said it yourself. A cow produces a cow because a cow can only produce a cow. That puts this mutation business to rest. Things that mutate don't improve. They typically degenerate. So mutation isn't a genuine form of creative progression."
​

I know you're trying to defend Biblical Creationism, which is quite understandable---I recognize the stake you have in it---but to wander into territory which you have little understanding is quite foolish. If you truly want to go toe-to-toe with those of us who know the particulars and the ins and outs of evolution I strongly suggest you take the time to understand it, and those arguments already made against it and why they don't work. Too often a creationist will come to RF spouting time worn arguments against evolution and have no idea of the implications of what they're saying, or why, as in the case above, they fail right out of the gate. Most of the pro-evolution people here have been through these arguments many times and virtually moan in unison when one pops up again. This isn't to say we've necessarily heard it all, and that a new and substantial argument FOR creationism isn't welcome, in fact, I for one would be delighted to see it, but none of us are holding our breath. (As a side note, I started a thread here challenging creationists to make a case for creationism without referencing evolution. So far, nothing, and it's now 244 posts long) In any case, if you don't feel your getting the respect you think you deserve for your argument it's probably because we expect people who come here to defend creationism with arguments against evolution to be at least conversant with it. AND at least give our explanations reasoned consideration, rather than responding with knee-jerk rejections and off topic remarks. The last here being a ploy used all too often ploy to avoid an issue.


.