Spirituality
12 May 12
15 May 12
Originally posted by humyYou still did not answer the questions. What you claim to be answers is no more than complaining about the questions and providing strawman arguments and questions to avoid really answering questions like politicians often do.These are the questions jaywill asked you:
firstly, you didn't say anything about jaywill asking them -how could I possibly know what you were talking about? I am not a mind reader and I don't do word-games.
Secondly, I have already answered them on the bottom of page 6 of this thread and your claim that I don't know the answers is clear ...[text shortened]... my answer to just one of the two questions; you do understand what an analogy is -right?
15 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillThis is exactly what the creator has done to allow adaptations, which the evolutionists claim is evolution. Many of them can't really understand what evolution is supposed to be. Even when I tell them, they think I am changing the meaning of evolution.You still haven't answered my question here. My question was:
“evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain..... “
Richard Dawkins uses the example of a computerized random letter generation program. His intention was to ...[text shortened]... How else should we discribe such an outcome if not "lucky" or the result of pure chance?
15 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsyou're not versed well enough on evolution to be telling others what it is or isn't. and that's just one topic. in fact, your entire conception of reality is laughable; you still believe the universe is a few thousand years old and until a few days ago, you thought it rotated around the earth.
This is exactly what the creator has done to allow adaptations, which the evolutionists claim is evolution. Many of them can't really understand what evolution is supposed to be. Even when I tell them, they think I am changing the meaning of evolution.
15 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritWhere did I say the universe rotated around the earth? Since when did you start thinking how the universe rotates has something to do with evolution?
you're not versed well enough on evolution to be telling others what it is or isn't. and that's just one topic. in fact, your entire conception of reality is laughable; you still believe the universe is a few thousand years old and until a few days ago, you thought it rotated around the earth.
15 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillYou are falling for one of the most common errors to do with coincidence, one that interestingly results in most of the irrational beliefs people have (astrology for example).
The sun is 400 times the size of the moon. Yet it is also 400 times as far away from observing platform of the earth as the moon. So there is a coincidental perfect fit of the image of the moon inside the sun to block of the sun's light to a spectacular show on earth.
Coincedence ? Maybe. (What unimaginable luck)
What happens it you notice an interesting coincidence, then work out the probability of it happening in isolation. What you forget, is that prior to the probability calculation, you already know it happened. Probability is all about what information is available. If you already know it happened, then the probability is 1. Instead, you pretend that you don't know and get some wildly improbable figure.
The error comes about because you assign a value of 'special' to what happened. What you don't realize is how many 'special' things did not happen. If you lived on another planet with different moons, there would be at least one phenomena that you would assign 'special' status to and then say 'but no other planet in the solar system experiences this, it must be by design'.
15 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is right. You are beginning to get it. The whole universe is designed and created by God. None of those moons are there by accident. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
You are falling for one of the most common errors to do with coincidence, one that interestingly results in most of the irrational beliefs people have (astrology for example).
What happens it you notice an interesting coincidence, then work out the probability of it happening in isolation. What you forget, is that prior to the probability calculation, yo ...[text shortened]... say 'but no other planet in the solar system experiences this, it must be by design'.
15 May 12
5 edits
Originally posted by jaywillYou still haven't answered my question here. My question was:
“evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain..... “
Richard Dawkins uses the example of a computerized random letter generation program. His intention was to How else should we discribe such an outcome if not "lucky" or the result of pure chance?
Richard Dawkins uses the example of a computerized random letter generation program. His intention was to demonstrate how the random production of a computer could eventually produce a recognizable sentence. From this example he argues that the same could be said for random mutations in the genome producing useful strings of amino acids (proteins) and their preservation.
so?
Now this was his example of reasoning. What this has to do with a natural process without a goal is in a number of places.
If evolution has no goal how would it RECOGNIZE the useful mutation to be preserved ?
natural selection does not consciously “RECOGNIZE” the “useful mutation” if that is what you are saying ( is it? ) -so no “goal” implied. You can make that question make more sense by insisting that the word “RECOGNIZE” needn't necessarily imply consciously recognize or imply a goal, intent, mind etc.
The individuals with the most advantageous mutations would be selected ( none-standard meaning of the word “selected” here that does not imply a goal, intent, mind etc ) by the habitat. The reason is simple; the most genetically adapted will have a competitive advantage when it comes to surviving ( and passing on their genes so any with a particularly advantageous mutation would generally pass-on more of their genes ( thus along with the advantageous mutation ) into the genome of the next generation ). The opposite happens with disadvantageous mutations. This is all natural selection is. So were is the “goal” implied here? Answer; nowhere.
Think of the experiment with the computer randomly generating strings of letters to produce a readable English sentence. How would it KNOW which string of letters, ie. "John, how are you today?" is useful, significant, and to be preserved ?
it wouldn't. A computer just blindly does what it is programmed to do. Unless it is some kind of advanced AI, it doesn't “KNOW” anything.
In the case of the random letter generator it has to be programmed into the logic to RECOGNIZE and PRESERVE the arrival at a meaningful sequence of letters, ie "John, how are you today ?"
if it was programmed to do that then that would not be analogous to evolution because evolution isn't nor need to be "programmed" and it doesn't have a 'program' nor use software.
Is the SELECTION of a useful mutation by means of a goal to recognize and preserve that which is useful to further survival of the species of organism ?
No. Because there is no goal in evolution and, also, natural selection occurs mainly on an individual level; there is no special hidden selection force to make a species as a whole survive.
If it is not goal oriented selection of any kind than HOW ELSE could we possibly discribe supposed beneficial outcome to the species but PURE CHANCE ?
again, there is no special hidden selection force to make a species as a whole survive, natural selection occurs mainly on the individual level. Also, if natural selection selects for an advantageous mutation which then DOES spread to the whole population, then, obviously, it doesn't do that by “ PURE CHANCE” but RATHER by natural selection which is not purely random but has a level of predictability. Foe example, once an advantageous mutation starts to spread widely in a genome, we can predict with confidence that it would be almost inevitable that it will spread to the whole of that genome -so no “pure chance” implied there.
15 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I answered the questions by stating their false assumptions.
You still did not answer the questions. What you claim to be answers is no more than complaining about the questions and providing strawman arguments and questions to avoid really answering questions like politicians often do.
That is the ONLY way you can answer a question with a false assumption ( if you can call that an “answer” -but that is the closest you can get to an “answer” to such a question ).
If you deny this, then answer this question:
“why does a square have only three sides?”
just try and answer this question without saying/implying a square has MORE than three sides and without saying/implying that the assumption that it has only three sides is a false assumption -then come back to me.
15 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humy
[quote] Richard Dawkins uses the example of a computerized random letter generation program. His intention was to demonstrate how the random production of a computer could eventually produce a recognizable sentence. From this example he argues that the same could be said for random mutations in the genome producing useful strings of amino acids (proteins) and t will spread to the whole of that genome -so no “pure chance” implied there.
natural selection does not consciously “RECOGNIZE” the “useful mutation” if that is what you are saying ( is it? ) -so no “goal” implied. You can make that question make more sense by insisting that the word “RECOGNIZE” needn't necessarily imply consciously recognize or imply a goal, intent, mind etc.
This is a problem with how we can talk about evolution.
If it is an error to conceive of the process of having a "goal" then it is hard to model it. If we speak of how long it would take a protozoan to evolve into a flatworm, we have to ASSUME the flatworm as a goal.
If we try to model or calculate the years it would take to evolve from a protozoan to a mollusc or a monkey, we have to assume the mollusc or the monkey as a "goal".
The very question we ask gets off to a erroneous start because we are not permitted to think that evolution is seeking a specific goal. The ecological niche occupied by any animal we could say could have been occupied by an altogether different animal.
The lack of goal, which you impose, limits an analysis of evolution to calculating that the number of mutations required for the changes to occur from one snapshot of the fossil record to another snapshot.
We just have to assume the changes could occur in some suggested time frame. It is easy to speculate on the distant past when assumptions cannot be opened up to verification.
Here we have a protozoa. And here we have a monkey. And we say that in some large amount of time evolution processed through to arrive from the former to the latter.
Now we set out to model this. But to do so we have to establish the latter as a goal. But, "Oh no! Evolution has no goal!" But we have to model the monkey as a specific goal in order to study the process from protozoa to monkey.
Maybe the type of mutations we can discuss. But the likely number of mutations cannot be calculated. Within the period of time could this number of modifications occur ?
Suppose I asked you how long and what would be involved in you driving from Jersey City to Dallas Texas? But you have to figure that arriving at Dallas Texas is NOT a goal ?
I have to continue this latter. Have to go.
15 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywillThis time, please don't confuse the use of an analogy to make a point about a subject with changing the subject.natural selection does not consciously “RECOGNIZE” the “useful mutation” if that is what you are saying ( is it? ) -so no “goal” implied. You can make that question make more sense by insisting that the word “RECOGNIZE” needn't necessarily imply consciously recognize or imply a goal, intent, mind etc.
This is a problem with how we ca rriving at Dallas Texas is NOT a goal ?
I have to continue this latter. Have to go.
Often I can only effectively point out the many errors in your 'logic' by using analogies as below:
If it is an error to conceive of the process of having a "goal" then it is hard to model it.
firstly, how is how “hard” to model a process necessarily relevant to whether the process involves a 'goal'?
We might, for example, find it hard to model a hurricane. If so, would that mean that a hurricane must involve a 'goal'? Answer; no. -why should this be any different with evolution?
secondly, how would a process not having a goal necessarily make it harder to model? -you haven't explained this although this wouldn't be relevant even if true because of my first point above.
If we speak of how long it would take a protozoan to evolve into a flatworm, we have to ASSUME the flatworm as a goal.
No.
HOW have we assumed a 'goal' by speaking of how long a process takes?
If we speak of how long it takes ( say, 1000 years ) for a sand-dune to move ten meters, does that mean we “ASSUME” the process of that movement has a 'goal'? Answer; no. -why should this be any different with evolution?
We just have to assume the changes could occur in some suggested time frame. It is easy to speculate on the distant past when assumptions cannot be opened up to verification.
We are not just 'assuming' that the changes that occurred to go from fossil X to fossil Y must have occurred within the time interval between them -it is just a matter of logic that, if such changes occurred between X and Y, the changes MUST have occurred within that time interval from when there was X to when there was Y. What other time interval could such changes possibly have occurred in?
Now we set out to model this. But to do so we have to establish the latter as a goal
WHY?
But we have to model the monkey as a specific goal in order to study the process from protozoa to monkey.
WHY?
If we speak of how long it would take for a hurricane to destroy a jungle, do we have to have to model the destruction of a jungle as a “specific goal” ( I assume you imply intent here ) in order to study the process of a hurricane? Or can we model the process without assuming a “specific goal” ( with intent of the process ) ? -if so, then why can't the same apply for evolution?
But the likely number of mutations cannot be calculated.
nonsense; mutation rates can be MEASURED.
Examples:
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/press/2009/090827.html
“27th August 2009 …....An international team of 16 scientists today reports the first direct measurement of the general rate of genetic mutation at individual DNA letters in humans. ...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
“....An organism's mutation rates can be measured by a number of techniques. ...”
...and there is a vast mountain of evidence I can add to that that mutation rates CAN and ARE measured.
Within the period of time could this number of modifications occur ?
yes. If you dispute this then first look at the evidence in the two above links plus google the subject and research it and then show your measurements and maths that show your measurements and mathematical wisdom on this is better than that of the scientists that actually calculate and measured mutation rates.....
Suppose I asked you how long and what would be involved in you driving from Jersey City to Dallas Texas? But you have to figure that arriving at Dallas Texas is NOT a goal ?
No. Driving a car from A to B is a process that we KNOW involves a goal with intent thus that process does not go into the same category of natural processes which we know have NO goal with intent such as evolution, hurricanes, avalanches etc thus you can not logically extrapolate from cherry-picked processes that are the ones cherry-picked by you for having the property of been known to involves a goal so that you conclude that a process that we do NOT naturally assume involves a goal ( such as evolution, hurricanes, avalanches etc ) must also have a goal and that is because the processes belong to two DIFFERENT categories; namely, the ones we know involve a goal and the ones we don't.
If you could logically make such an extrapolation, then, according to your 'logic', ALL natural processes ( not just evolution ) must involve a goal including hurricanes, avalanches, sand-dune formation, sea tides, earthquakes, crystal growth and many more.
DO you actually believe that all these natural processes including hurricanes, avalanches, sand-dune formation, sea tides, earthquakes, crystal growth etc involve a goal with conscious intent?
I have answered all your questions. Will you answer at least some of mine?
15 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillHumy has done a really good job of responding to this stuff from Jaywill. Jaywill would not even consider making these arguments if he had ever read and understood a decent book on the subject of evolution. Do you mind if I join in all the same?natural selection does not consciously “RECOGNIZE” the “useful mutation” if that is what you are saying ( is it? ) -so no “goal” implied. You can make that question make more sense by insisting that the word “RECOGNIZE” needn't necessarily imply consciously recognize or imply a goal, intent, mind etc.
This is a problem with how we ca ...[text shortened]... rriving at Dallas Texas is NOT a goal ?
I have to continue this latter. Have to go.
If it is an error to conceive of the process of having a "goal" then it is hard to model it. If we speak of how long it would take a protozoan to evolve into a flatworm, we have to ASSUME the flatworm as a goal.
We can trace our common ancestry back as far as we wish. It has been set out in a book called "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins. The list is comprehensive and well supported by research evidence at each stage. The assertion that we have to assume a goal is not valid. We can describe the process of evolution without specifying anything other than the implications of genetic variation in an environment that is itself constantly changing and complex.
Evolution does not happen by chance and it does not have a goal. What happens by chance is occasional innaccuracies in the transmission of genetic information. We can now observe such differences directly so hardly even need to speculate. They happen. They also do not happen frequently. On the whole genetic transmission is very reliable. Some species have been in place for staggering time periods. Even so, that is not the most common picture for species.
It is incredibly unlikely that any significant transmission error would produce a viable offspring. Evolution probably never (this is debated still by some, but I think wrongly) and certainly very rarely can happen in big steps between two generations. Hence a lot of time must pass. Even if viable offspring emerged, assuming a creature of some complexity, it is not clear how it would survive to adulthood or reproduce if it were radically different to its neighbours.
Trivial changes do arise and may permit viable offspring, who in turn transmit their altered gene. These variations may have no significance whatever because they are trivial but if they do no harm they will not get in the way of reproduction and so will be transmitted in the genes.
However, as a result, every population turns out to contain variation which can accumulate over time. Evolution is possible only because such variations arise normally and all the time.
The environment also varies both geographically and over time. The longer the time scale the greater the variation. Think about continental drift or even just ice ages. Most species require quite specific types of environment. If creatures did not also vary they would not survive the radical changes in their environment.
Change will suit some variants more than others. It does not take much to make a significant difference. For this reason, each environment does have the effect of "favouring" some types of variation over others.
The factor which leads to one variant having an edge in terms of survival is its environment. This gives us the notion of an ecological niche and that is where Jaywill's immortal line can be raised:
The very question we ask gets off to an erroneous start because we are not permitted to think that evolution is seeking a specific goal. The ecological niche occupied by any animal we could say could have been occupied by an altogether different animal.
This is exactly and precisely what does happen. For example a range of marsupials in Australia evolved to fill ecological niches which in Africa are filled by mammals. There is a marsupial ant eater like a mammalian anteater and they are built differently, yet turn out to have functional similarities. In each case, their ancestry can be reliably traced to quite different kinds of creature - marsupial and mammalian respectively.
This also confirms something else. Evolution is not just a chance event. Creatures are variable for no special reason except the way genes are replicated with occasional errors of transmission. Environments vary for lots of reasons. But given a specific environment, then this will be more favourable to some species and less so to others. That is not chance at all.
The lack of goal, which you impose, limits an analysis of evolution to calculating that the number of mutations required for the changes to occur from one snapshot of the fossil record to another snapshot.
We just have to assume the changes could occur in some suggested time frame. It is easy to speculate on the distant past when assumptions cannot be opened up to verification.
They are open to verification and the results as I said are listed carefully and in tedious detail in The Ancestors Tale with supporting references. Go read it.