09 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJay
Processes are driving forces, things work due the forces applied or denied in the
manner in which all of that is done. Your computer program example had a
programmer setup all the processes and watched them work the way they set them
up and said those results prove you can have no setup processes and get these
types of results, which is apples and orang ...[text shortened]... at ever, and since you are the one promoting it I'd like
to see some examples of it.
Kelly
No set process means there is no reason for anything to do what it’s going to do, everything is random.
Natural selection is not random so you are working on a false premis.
09 Oct 12
Originally posted by finneganit's good that you cleared it up. the process does not require an intelligent designer, but it also does not rule it out.
The process I described does not require an intelligent designer or any other type of intelligence. If a sea dries up then the fish in the sea simply die. That is all that can happen with such an environmental change. If an island is submerged, then any land animals on the island drown and die. That is all that can happen. If a region is buried in thick i ...[text shortened]... plicated. Most of these debates are word games with people lacking access to a plain dictionary.
the emergence of intelligence plays a big role in evolution and causes major environmental impact. at sufficient levels such as ours, we begin moving into intelligent design being a direct factor in the evolution of species. what about a million years hence? a billion? what part will evolved intelligence play then? the universe is pretty old. old enough for such an intelligence to have evolved.
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by finneganIt isn't a controlled process, it is random acts, random variables, for randomNo set process means there is no reason for anything to do what it’s going to do, everything is random.
Natural selection is not random so you are working on a false premis.
amounts of time. Suggesting natural selection is anything other than that would
be inserting some ID into the process.
Kelly
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobThey were looking at what life does, they didn't just create the process they were
No, it's not faith. Here's an example of cumulative selection at work creating greater complexity -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652413/
viewing it. So was the out come due to design or not of living systems? You are
reaching here, this is like saying because we saw a bone in a human leg mend
we know evolution is true!
Kelly
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's an example of cumulative selection at work creating greater complexity. You said it wasn't possible, yet here it is.
They were looking at what life does, they didn't just create the process they were
viewing it. So was the out come due to design or not of living systems? You are
reaching here, this is like saying because we saw a bone in a human leg mend
we know evolution is true!
Kelly
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobI said it wasn't going to happen out of the OUT OF CONTROL processes, your
It's an example of cumulative selection at work creating greater complexity. You said it wasn't possible, yet here it is.
lumping living systems together and watch them react. I'm not debating that
living systems cannot become more complex, every birth shows life doing that,
but is that design or a result of out of controls processes improving over time?
Kelly
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJayAs Dawkins has stated 'it's the non-random selection of random variants'.
It isn't a controlled process, it is random acts, random variables, for random
amounts of time. Suggesting natural selection is anything other than that would
be inserting some ID into the process.
Kelly
If an animal, say a wild dog, has slightly longer hair due to a mutation in a gene (and we know this happens in dogs with mutations of their FGF5 gene) that would be random. Now if the climate takes a turn for the worst over the next few years then that dog will have an increased chance of survival due to it's longer hair and will have a greater chance of spreading that mutated gene down the ancestral line.
Now if the weather instead of becoming colder becomes hotter, then the mutation within the FGF5 gene that has made this particular dogs hair longer now greatly reduces it's chance of survival. The animal is not likely to survive and the gene is not going to be spread down the ancestral line.
In both cases the mutation was random, but both cases had different outcomes, nature did the selecting, if the result of the mutation increased the animals survival chances then the gene with the mutation was passed on to future generations. In this case the results would have been animals with longer hair. If the results of the mutation decreased the animals survival chances then the animal will most likely die off and then gene is removed from the gene pool.
No ID required anywhere.
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI said it wasn't going to happen out of the OUT OF CONTROL processes
I said it wasn't going to happen out of the OUT OF CONTROL processes, your
lumping living systems together and watch them react. I'm not debating that
living systems cannot become more complex, every birth shows life doing that,
but is that design or a result of out of controls processes improving over time?
Kelly
What is an 'out of control process'? You've lost me.
your lumping living systems together and watch them react.
I'm not lumping anything together. This RNA system is not technically living.
every birth shows life doing that, but is that design or a result of out of controls processes improving over time.
Well if you think it's a result of design prove it. Make your case. I'mm all ears/eyes. 🙂
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobRNA system is still a system, doing what it does.
[b]I said it wasn't going to happen out of the OUT OF CONTROL processes
What is an 'out of control process'? You've lost me.
your lumping living systems together and watch them react.
I'm not lumping anything together. This RNA system is not technically living.
every birth shows life doing that, but is that design or a result of ...[text shortened]... ell if you think it's a result of design prove it. Make your case. I'mm all ears/eyes. 🙂
Kelly
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobRNA system is still a system, doing what it does.
[b]I said it wasn't going to happen out of the OUT OF CONTROL processes
What is an 'out of control process'? You've lost me.
your lumping living systems together and watch them react.
I'm not lumping anything together. This RNA system is not technically living.
every birth shows life doing that, but is that design or a result of ...[text shortened]... ell if you think it's a result of design prove it. Make your case. I'mm all ears/eyes. 🙂
Kelly
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm sorry, but you asked for an example of cumulative selection at work and i've given you one. It's there, it exists. Now want you do with that evidence is entirely up to you of course, but i have no doubt that in a few months we'll come back to this subject and again you claim no such system exists and again i'll trot out this example and so on and so on [i]ad nauseum[i].
I'm not going to repeat what I just said.
Kelly
10 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are wrong. There are random variables, that is true, depending on how random you want that to be. Some people argue there is no example in nature of anything that is truly random. (Quantum Physics says otherwise of course) Arguably, there is random variation only within a set of real constraints. A set of dice is only random within the constraint of requiring a number between one and six, or a coin only allowing heads or tails, pace the usual weird possibilities of landing and balancing on an edge.
It isn't a controlled process, it is random acts, random variables, for random
amounts of time. Suggesting natural selection is anything other than that would
be inserting some ID into the process.
Kelly
The conditions for life arise from the history of the universe. Life evolves on this particular planet with its unusual features and within the existing constraints such as physics and chemistry provide. You may want do debate how that is possible and it is an interesting question, not least when searching through other potentially habitable planets now becoming accessible in the universe.
When the theory of natural selection came along, it was intended to explain how evolution operates, given as already agreed and established that life clearly does evolve. If you want to dispute that life does evolve that again is another debate.
Once we are confronted with the actual evolution of different species on this actual planet of ours, then natural selection supplies an adequate account which is consistent with all the other sciences such as physics and chemistry and of course geology. A fun article to google is called "On being the right size" and explores the impossibility of creatures arising outside pretty firm parameters. These paramaters are not random because they cannot be contravened and they function in the way described by the theory.
http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html
Random variation is evident all around you. Ignoring this is just being obtuse, blind or dishonest. A change such as a new ice age may be effectively random (though of course it is physically determined) but its impact is not random. Those random differences have a predictable and evident consequence on the destiny of every living creature on this planet, not least on the prospects for reproduction and survival.