FYP.

Your past posting record speaks for itself. You lack intellectual honesty. And beer offers which you know are almost certainly never going to be taken are viewed as disingenuous.

I don't really care what you think of me, either. At this point, I don't expect you to do anything but the things you've already done and have shown that are willing to continue to do.

But I do care that the record is accurately reflected. I care that errors are corrected and false statements amended to reflect what is true. And until those things start to happen, you should expect these reminders to continue.

While I don't emphatically share your vision of evolution (although I find the possibility wonderful to ponder), I'm pretty much in complete agreement with everything you said here. I do not believe in prayer or miracles. I do hope for a conscious afterlife, but don't get too hung up on it and I certainly don't agree with any of the major religions' views on the subject.

Wow so many replies, I'll just respond to this one for now since this was one of the first ones after my previous post. Evolution is part randomness, part non randomness. Randomness is genetic mutations obviously and non-randomness is natural selection. Perhaps, 500 million years ago, the chance of intelligent mammalian primates evolving in the next 500 million years was 75%. I think someone (Stu) mentioned how two skulls could have evolved, in two unrelated species, to end up looking so similar. This is homoplasy, similarity not due to common ancestry, and this just shows how randomness really is not a very large part of evolution in all cases. Because of homoplasy, I personally think evolution is more dependent on natural selection than random mutations.

Anyway, since there IS an element of chance in evolution, that's one of the reasons I believe it was unguided. You say since the ToE is useless as a predictive model, it's not useful to debunk God. I'm arguing that it's the exact opposite. If evolution was predictable, then this would be in favor of God-guided evolution.

You've seen my other thread in science and philosophy called, "Is randomness a real phenomena in nature?", right? Yeah, you posted in it. Well, at the cellular level, the process that produces genetic variation for natural selection to chose from is real randomness. God can't control a random process...therefore he couldn't have just "let things unfold the only way they could".

This is similar to Stu's argument and this is a bad analogy and here's why. First, evolution requires no code to be written at it's inception. The process of evolution is a process that requires no invention or creation, it just happens. Second, if your computer program involves foresight and no element of randomness. You write the computer program with an image in mind of it eventually producing The Sims. Evolution doesn't work like this. Evolution involves randomness, which completely changes things and makes it so design in evolution is impossible.

From the genomics perspective, I'm surprised you say we can't tell the difference between guided and unguided. Behavior of the DNA molecules (mendelian genetics and mutations) just prior to producing sperm and eggs is basically how we know that randomness is occurring and is real.

Let me give an example of an experiment. I read this in a book, details are probably not accurate but hoping to just give you the general idea. DNA polymerase, the enzyme that replicates DNA, makes an error sometimes and the error is random. Here's an experiment that supports this:

There was a long experiment, at least 25 years. In it, 6 bacterial lines were grown in 6 petri dishes supplied with food medium and a substance they could not eat. The 6 bacteria strains and petridishes w/ food were the EXACT same. Every day, a small amount of the bacteria were placed in a new petridish with new food. They experienced an exponential growth followed by leveling off, and these growth vs time graphs were recorded. This was done every day, and the graphs looked basically the same for years. Then, suddenly, on of the six strain's graphs had a much higher leveling off. Their population increased much higher than the other strains. They acquired a mutation in their genome that allowed them to digest the substance in the petridish (that was no intended as food), so their population could reach a higher plateaeu. For the rest of the experiment, the one mutant bacterial line had a much higher growth curve every single day because natural selection had favored the bacteria that could digest food other bacteria couldn't.

One example, of countless, that mutations are random.

Yes, you claimed there that there is real randomness going on here, but no one agreed with you. My objections on this issue have been unchanged every time you bring up this topic. If you really want to clarify the truth here, why not continue posting in that thread to hash out this disagreement?

And even if you are correct, why do you believe that God is unable to control a process that we call random? And please don't say it's by definition (that is, defining random to be strictly something that is unguided, therefore God can't guide something random) because that fails to be useful in the specific instance that we're asking this question. That is, why can't God guide what you believe to be the random process of genetic variation being produced at the cellular level while it still appears random to us?

You say your first point a lot. Evolution just is. But this isn't very useful. Could a universe be created where evolution just isn't? I don't see why not. Evolution is because the universe is set up such that it happens. This is no different than setting up the code in Jib's example such that evolution will happen.

Secondly, why can't there be randomness in Jib's computer program? Every programming language allows you to pull in random elements.

Also, you said above that "I personally think evolution is more dependent on natural selection than random mutations." So can't one set things up with an end goal in mind simply by defining the parameters of natural selection that will lead to that goal? The mutations will happen when they happen, but the natural selection will get you where you want to go, right?

Did you notice how nobody in that thread consented to the idea that you've adequately described "randomness" or made any affirmative statements regarding it?

Here's the link:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...ature-1181669/

In that thread, you stated the following definition of randomness:

And you've stated the following example:

In what sense are you able to apply this concept of "random" with respect to God? Are you saying that it's "impossible" for God to predict the outcome of a coin flip?

Regarding the bolded part. You have never shown that this is true. You assume it is so you conclude it is. Your reasoning is circular. For you to construct a credible argument you must include these two premises(or show that 2 is false).

1. It is logically possible evolution just happens.
2. It is logically possible it is the product of intellect.

With those two premises in hand go make your argument that 1 is actually what happens in nature.....otherwise we get to dismiss you as a crackpot.

I lol'ed.

Just like magic........Ta-Da!

i don't think you really addressed my concern. maybe i failed to say what i meant by "genomics". i meant looking at the DNA. it's structure, it's sequence, it's organization. sorry, not good at talking to people outside of a lab.

couple comments though

isn't your example guided evolution? man (the higher power in this case) selecting for something that can grow on new media? does it matter that man didn't introduce the mutations, he still selected for it.


i've never argued that mutations are random (for the most part, they're not as random as u think, but i don't think it's an issue in the context of evolution). i'm arguing that the selection may be guided. even if you still choose to define the above as "unguided". all it shows is that spontaneous mutations do an can occur unguided. it doesn't mean that it must occur unguided.

if you were to look at the sequence of this strain compared to the parental. yes you might possibly be able to identify the mutation(s) that provide for growth on different media. but can you tell me (without knowing that the new strain was man made), whether it was created in a laboratory by the process described above or if was isolated from the wild without the guidance of man? would it look different if man were to generate the mutaions by treating the bacteria with a chemical mutagen (assuming i select something that can target and replace each base equally) and make the same new strain in 1 year rather than 25?

despite your surprise i don't think i can tell from the genome sequence which is which (assuming i'm looking at the sequences "blind").

Stu:

i know i made a stu argument. but i just want to say, just because man can guide evolution, doesn't mean a power higher than man must guide evolution (i know broken record)

my statement above:

i've never argued that mutations are random (for the most part, they're not as random as u think, but i don't think it's an issue in the context of evolutio

should read:

i've never argued that mutations are random for the most part (they're not as random as u think, but i don't think it's an issue in the context of evolution)

too much time on my hands.

forgot to say. genomics can find some "non-random" mutations though. for example, assuming i had data strongly suggesting if i made specific mutations, i can get the bacteria to grow on new media, and i went a targeted those mutations. genomics for the most part will identify those (or at least the mutations will stick out way more when compared to the conservation in the rest of the genome). but i'm not arguing the mutation side. i'm proposing it's selection (which i would think would be the driving force in fixation of new traits)

Do you agree that the outcome of, say, a coin flip or shaking a dice in your hands for 10 minutes without looking, then releasing, gives a random outcome? If not, I'm not sure we even have the same definition of random. If these do not give a random result, then give me an example of something that does. Or do you believe randomness isn't even real and doesn't exist? Why is the word in the dictionary then?

If you agree that a coin flip or dice rolling is random, then you have to agree that Mendelian genetics also involves randomness. You have half a chance of being born male and half female, similar to how you have half a chance of flipping heads for a coin.

If your mom has genotype Aa and your dad Aa, then the chance your younger sibling will be born aa is 25% and this is confirmable. Using, say mice, we can do the same experiment (mice have the exact same genetic machinery as us), breeding hundreds of mice and confirming that Mendelian genetics is true.

As for your second paragraph, I don't know how to answer that but to say, "since it's random to us it has to be random to God to." I know you asked me not to say that but I don't even understand how something can be random to us but not to God. This is similar to Christians' claims that God is "beyond time". What does that even mean? If he's interacting with us humans, who are limited by and living with time, he must have some kind of connection to time. It sounds nice to say, "God is beyond time and space", but I'm not sure if that's even logically possible.

There's a difference between if evolution involves 5% randomness and 0% randomness. If there is even 5% randomness involved, then at the start you can't be sure what the result will be. Personally I think randomness is much higher, like 30% at least. Keep in mind randomness can mean things besides mutations, such as freak weather events or genetic drift, or by chance a lizard drifts to an isolated island on a log to give rise to new species.