|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is random! Stop saying it isn't! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Bodhitharta,
I see you've returned and edited your post, but you included no indication of what you changed, and I never saw the original. I'm guessing you added the explanation that appears after the link? Anyway, that's good if that's what you did, but the other point made to you is that this is off-topic in this thread. If you'd like to discuss your own views then you should propose a new thread over at [forum=-25]. You can just copy the text of your message for the proposal. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bodhitharta Member (Idle past 6094 days) Posts: 10 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Joined: |
I thought this was on topic, the reason is because I am saying that evolution is random and yet life is not random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Bodhitharta writes: I thought this was on topic, the reason is because I am saying that evolution is random and yet life is not random. That's not at all what you said in your Message 13. If you'd like to join the discussion here about randomness then welcome aboard, while if you want to discuss the assertions you make in Message 13 then you should propose a new thread. And, of course, you can do both. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I thought this was on topic, ... Let me see if I can help you see the problem.
... I am saying that evolution is random ... That is the topic -- and how it is random and how it is not random.
... and yet life is not random. That is not the topic. There are other issues, logical problems, misunderstanding of evolution, mixing up abiogenesis, just for starters, and it will take considerable discussion to cover these aspects of your video and the excerpt from it (it IS your video right?) Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bodhitharta Member (Idle past 6094 days) Posts: 10 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Joined: |
Okay, I will just talk about the randomness in this thread. The ToE is about random mutations resulting in predictable outcomes of information usually by the so-called means of "natural selection". Natural selection has been a term greatly misused as it can only genuinely mean Biological viability/fitness. Nature doesn't actually "select" anything. Therefore if the ToE states that randomness tempered by NS is the biological outcome it makes no sense in several ways especially in terms of sexual reproduction. There is a movement now as to where you get people saying "well, it's not actually random because of natural selection" but what does that have to do with mutations being random? the fact is, If the mutations are random then the biological viability/fitness would also be random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Bodhitharta writes: the fact is, If the mutations are random then the biological viability/fitness would also be random. That does not follow. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. If a process is selective that by its very nature is not random but selective. Natural Selection (biological viability if you will) is a filter. A filter is selective and not random. I can think of a number of simple thought experiments to demonstrate this. For example, assume you have a mixture of spherical and square shapes in a box of the same primary dimension. If you cut a hole in the box to match the radius of the spherical shape and give the box a good random shaking, the shapes will jostles about randomly. Occasionally a spherical shape will pop out but never a square. This selection or filtering process is not random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bodhitharta Member (Idle past 6094 days) Posts: 10 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Joined: |
Nature doesn't process anything! It is quite humorous for you to give nature attributes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
If the mutations are random then the biological viability/fitness would also be random. This is true as far as it goes. If we assume that a population of genetically identical individuals of equal fitness gives rise to a new generation who differ only due to random mutations then the distriution of fitness in the next generation will reflect the randomness of the causative mutations. The 'non-randomness' of natural selection is principally just some obvious observations on the repercussions of certain types of mutation. Mutations which prevent the embryo from developing will not be passed on to the next generation, mutations causing sterility will not be passed on to the next generation, mutations which lead to an individual having more offspring will tend to be over represented in the next generation, mutations which lead to an individual having less offspring will tend to be under represented in the next generation. So while the initial distribution and effect of the mutations is random the set of mutations passed on to the subsequent generation and their frequency is dependent on the interaction of each particular mutation with its environment. Assuming no further mutations occur in the next generation the frequencies of mutations in the subsequent generation will not reflect the random distribution of the mutations in the previous generation. The whole system is only random to the extent that it has some random element in it. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bodhitharta Member (Idle past 6094 days) Posts: 10 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Joined: |
So what about "Random" positive mutations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Bodhitharta writes: Nature doesn't process anything Here are a few natural processes:
Edited by iceage, : bullets
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bodhitharta Member (Idle past 6094 days) Posts: 10 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Joined: |
So "nature" is intending to do these things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Bodhitharta writes: So "nature" is intending to do these things? Nope. Never even implied that. They are just a few natural processes that filter randomness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... usually by the so-called means of "natural selection". Natural selection has been a term greatly misused as it can only genuinely mean Biological viability/fitness. Nature doesn't actually "select" anything. Therefore if the ToE states that randomness tempered by NS is the biological outcome it makes no sense in several ways ... Nothing "so called" about it. When one individual dies and another lives selection has occurred. That selection affects the next reproduction cycle. When an individual is sick, that could affect its survival or its ability to breed, and it has been selected. All that is needed is very small selection pressure in any one direction to have a significant effect over time. Your inability to make sense of it is no hindrance to nature behaving as it has for billions of years.
... especially in terms of sexual reproduction. Most emphatically false. When a male elk takes over a herd of female elk he prevents other males from mating with the females, thus eliminating their genes from the next generation. That is selection and nothing BUT selection. Even with more "democratic" species the number of opportunities for mating is different for different individuals due to sexual selection on the part of one or both potential mates, and those more able to mate are selected for producing more of the next generation than those less able to mate. That is selection and nothing BUT selection.
If the mutations are random then the biological viability/fitness would also be random. Before selection, but not after, as not all mutations are selected equally (why they call it selection and not viability\fitness). Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bodhitharta Member (Idle past 6094 days) Posts: 10 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Joined: |
How do "natural" processess "filter" anything? Are these processess designed to filter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bodhitharta Member (Idle past 6094 days) Posts: 10 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Joined: |
So is the male elk acting with intention?
BTW, Are you saying that in an accident or terrorist attack "natural selection" is taking place?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024