Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you're going to go on and on, requiring people to provide you with mathematical equations for things that they never said could be calculated, then you'd better be prepared to substantiate the claim that you just made about "freedom" being real and relevant in the universe. Certainly you have an equation to support such a claim, since all things can be proven mathematically, right?

I've bought a book with a mathematical theory of everything. Maybe I can answer your question after I read it.

In any case, in my opinion the argument is already over when somebody does not accept the fact that freedom is real.

 

[leibowde84]

I've bought a book with a mathematical theory of everything. Maybe I can answer your question after I read it.

In any case, in my opinion the argument is already over when somebody's does not accept the fact that freedom is real.

That's the thing. No one that has commented on your question has claimed that Freedom is not real. They have merely said that freedom has nothing to do with what we are talking about. When you apply it to nature as if certain things are "chosen" by some entity, we need some kind of evidence to support this. If you do not have evidence to support this, I would suggest rethinking your position.

We need an explanation to even know what you are talking about. And, again, I believe in the freedom of choice, but it seems to be limited to human beings. All other animals seem to work off instinct. And, there is certainly no objective evidence pointing to nature having the ability to "choose." But, you really have failed to explain what you mean by "freedom" so I'm not even sure that is what you are saying.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That's the thing. No one that has commented on your question has claimed that Freedom is not real. They have merely said that freedom has nothing to do with what we are talking about. When you apply it to nature as if certain things are "chosen" by some entity, we need some kind of evidence to support this. If you do not have evidence to support this, I would suggest rethinking your position.

We need an explanation to even know what you are talking about. And, again, I believe in the freedom of choice, but it seems to be limited to human beings. All other animals seem to work off instinct. And, there is certainly no objective evidence pointing to nature having the ability to "choose." But, you really have failed to explain what you mean by "freedom" so I'm not even sure that is what you are saying.

You and most evolutionists don't understand how choosing works.

A correct and evolutionary explanation of choosing is for example that choosing provides predators and prey with unpredictability in attack and escape. That is how a sophisticated capability for choosing is a beneficial trait in the sense of natural selection theory. So choosing depends on there being alternative futures available, that is the correct understanding of it.

To sort out a result, is not choosing. With sorting the result is forced by the sortingcriteria.

 

[philbo]

You are not using maths, you are saying maths can't be used for beneficial mutations.

What planet are you on?

Please will you show where I have said "maths can't be used for beneficial mutations", because that is nothing like or to do with anything I have posted.

Are you intentionally trolling?

 

[leibowde84]

You and most evolutionists don't understand how choosing works.

A correct and evolutionary explanation of choosing is for example that choosing provides predators and prey with unpredictability in attack and escape. That is how a sophisticated capability for choosing is a beneficial trait in the sense of natural selection theory. So choosing depends on there being alternative futures available, that is the correct understanding of it.

To sort out a result, is not choosing. With sorting the result is forced by the sortingcriteria.

Oh, I understand it perfectly, and I'm sure that most evolutionists do as well. You just did a very poor job of explaining it by simply using the word "freedom." No one knew what you were talking about, but thanks for finally clarifying.

But, apart from human beings, animals do not "choose" in the way that you describe. In other words, they do not reason (there are exceptions, but for the most part), but, instead, work off instinct. But, even if you were correct, how would this contradict the theory of evolution? I mean, it's not like adding in another factor into the equation would in any way contradict the others. If evolution said that mutations were the only method for natural selection to work, you might have a point. But, no one has ever claimed that.

Further, your example demonstrates evolution of the brain, in that animals with more advanced senses/reactions/instinct (all located in the brain) would reproduce at a greater rate. Over millions of years, the species as a whole will evolve. So, again, your example in no way disproves evolution. At best, it merely adds in another factor to consider.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What planet are you on?

Please will you show where I have said "maths can't be used for beneficial mutations", because that is nothing like or to do with anything I have posted.

Are you intentionally trolling?

The contention is that randomness of mutations provides for more neutral and deleterious mutations than beneficial, and that natural selection in theory cannot keep up with weeding out deleterious and neutral mutations.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Oh, I understand it perfectly, and I'm sure that most evolutionists do as well. You just did a very poor job of explaining it by simply using the word "freedom." No one knew what you were talking about, but thanks for finally clarifying.

But, apart from human beings, animals do not "choose" in the way that you describe. In other words, they do not reason (there are exceptions, but for the most part), but, instead, work off instinct. But, even if you were correct, how would this contradict the theory of evolution?

Your understanding of choosing is still false.

 

[leibowde84]

The contention is that randomness of mutations provides for more neutral and deleterious mutations than beneficial, and that natural selection in theory cannot keep up with weeding out deleterious and neutral mutations.

Why wouldn't it be able to. It isn't "doing" anything, as it is merely an explanation for what is occurring naturally. But, beyond that, it would certainly be able to "keep up." There are far more detrimental/neutral mutations than beneficial. Those things die out more quickly than those who have beneficial mutations. I fail to see the problem when we are assuming this has been going on for 3.5 billion years.

You still have failed to present any valid argument against evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

Your understanding of choosing is still false.

Well then, be an adult and explain why. Don't just say, "you don't understand." That is flat out rude/disrespectful. Man-up.

 

[leibowde84]

Your understanding of choosing is still false.

If you have evidence to support your position that my understanding of choosing is false, present it. Without doing that, you are just making baseless claims, undeserving of merit.

 

[columbus]

ok

Hey friend godobeyer.
It is difficult for me to try and answer these questions for several reasons.
First is the language problems. Your English is vastly better than my French, but it still isn't good enough for this attempt. I'm not sure what you are even asking.
For instance, you keep referring to "bacteria", when they don't matter. I think you mean "one celled organisms", but human zygotes are one celled organisms that are not bacteria.

Then there is the fact that I am not a teacher. My education was good, but I never focused on science much less biology. Plenty of other people on RF know far more than me. And teachers are trained to tell what incorrect beliefs you already have and get rid of them before trying to teach the truth. I don't have that skill.
I am sure that there are life sciences learning, in a better language for you than English, available in a school or online. That is what I would suggest if you want the knowledge. You are obviously smart and could learn far better from a more appropriate teacher than me.
Tom

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you have evidence to support your position that my understanding of choosing is false, present it. Without doing that, you are just making baseless claims, undeserving of merit.

Because you said choosing does not apply to animals while my example of predator and prey was about animals.

 

[leibowde84]

Because you said choosing does not apply to animals while my example of predator and prey was about animals.

OK, so prove me wrong. How do you know that Animals make choices in the way you describe? All you have to do is prevent objective evidence, and I'll consider changing my view. But, just saying that I'm wrong is rude.

 

[philbo]

The contention is that randomness of mutations provides for more neutral and deleterious mutations than beneficial, and that natural selection in theory cannot keep up with weeding out deleterious and neutral mutations.

Even though that is irrelevant to the mathematical point I was making (which was a simple correction of probability, not directed at you at all), and implies a humungous gulf in understanding if you think that it was.. I'm going to answer you anyway:

What you say is probably a good argument against theistic/deific selection: the number of mutations probably is too large for any consciousness to go through weeding out deleterious ones; however "natural selection" is not some conscious "yes, you win", "no, you lose" decision. The ones that work, live; the ones that don't, die. The ones that work better, thrive and become more populous.

..it doesn't require any grasp of mathematics to see that this can happen; it takes no significant understanding of the fossil record to see that it has happened.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

OK, so prove me wrong. How do you know that Animals make choices in the way you describe? All you have to do is prevent objective evidence, and I'll consider changing my view. But, just saying that I'm wrong is rude.

Huhuh that's all evolutionists ever do, say the other is wrong and ignorant.

The proof is that the model of say a hare and a fox choosing, meaning to have alternative futures available and making one the present, corresponds with what is observed.

Just like every other evolutionist I talked to you confuse sorting with choosing. This is why you refer to reasoning, which reasons are obviously sorting criteria.

 

[columbus]

In any case, in my opinion the argument is already over when somebody does not accept the fact that freedom is real.

I don't think you understand how complex the word "freedom" is to a sophisticated speaker of English.
You seem to mean "free agency" or "free will". But that isn't what you say. So I can't tell what you mean.
I'm a fluent English speaker with a large vocabulary. There is not any context in which "freedom" is relevant to evolution of species.
Tom

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Even though that is irrelevant to the mathematical point I was making (which was a simple correction of probability, not directed at you at all), and implies a humungous gulf in understanding if you think that it was.. I'm going to answer you anyway:

What you say is probably a good argument against theistic/deific selection: the number of mutations probably is too large for any consciousness to go through weeding out deleterious ones; however "natural selection" is not some conscious "yes, you win", "no, you lose" decision. The ones that work, live; the ones that don't, die. The ones that work better, thrive and become more populous.

..it doesn't require any grasp of mathematics to see that this can happen; it takes no significant understanding of the fossil record to see that it has happened.

Science is not about pointing your finger at the universe, the theory must be a model, a copy, of what happens in nature. And the model with random mutations and natural selection leads to randomness destroying all organisms in the model. Natural selection is not efficient enough.

 

[leibowde84]

Huhuh that's all evolutionists ever do, say the other is wrong and ignorant.

The proof is that the model of say a hare and a fox choosing, meaning to have alternative futures available and making one the present, corresponds with what is observed.

Just like every other evolutionist I talked to you confuse sorting with choosing. This is why you refer to reasoning, which reasons are obviously sorting criteria.

lol. All you had to do was provide evidence. Just saying something that makes sense according to mere observations doesn't quite cut it. But, nevertheless, how would this disprove anything about evolution as a theory?

 

[leibowde84]

Science is not about pointing your finger at the universe, the theory must be a model, a copy, of what happens in nature. And the model with random mutations and natural selection leads to randomness destroying all organisms in the model. Natural selection is not efficient enough.

Why do you think that randomness leads to all species being destroyed? It's not like debilitating mutations are a common phenomena. And, natural selection doesn't have to be efficient, as it has billions of years to work with.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

lol. All you had to do was provide evidence. Just saying something that makes sense according to mere observations doesn't quite cut it. But, nevertheless, how would this disprove anything about evolution as a theory?

....I already said the example was evolutionary.... why don't you read and come up with an intelligent question