- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by whodeyWhy do theists focus so much on the 'random chance' element of evolution yet ignore the fact that there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms at work? - Sure, mutations may be random, but natural selection is like the opposite of random.
So what is your opinion of the article?
It would seem that "random chance" in evolution is but an illusion.
'To conceive of evolution as nothing more than blind chance and randomness is the most serious conceptual mistake one can make. Evolution does contain a component of chance, but there is far more to the process than that, and it is precisely the existence of the non-chance components that allows evolution to work. The process of evolution is driven by the engine of natural selection, a filter that extracts order out of chaos according to a fixed and non-random set of rules. It is for this reason that many of the most common creationist caricatures of evolution fail. Evolution is not like an explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary, a tornado in a junkyard producing a 747, or DNA in a blender producing a human being, because all of these lack a component of non-random selection.'
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/why-evolution-isnt-chance/#sthash.Mr4hk4If.dpuf
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by vivifyIt's even stupider that people believe Christians bash scientists as deceitful idiots just because they read something in a spirituality forum and took it out of context.
It's pretty stupid that Christians bash scientists as deceitful idiots, until one agrees with their beliefs.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke"The process of evolution is driven by the engine of natural selection, a filter that extracts order out of chaos according to a fixed and non-random set of rules."
Why do theists focus so much on the 'random chance' element of evolution yet ignore the fact that there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms at work? - Sure, mutations may be random, but natural selection is like the opposite of random.
'To conceive of evolution as nothing more than blind chance and randomness is the most serious conceptual ...[text shortened]... p://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/why-evolution-isnt-chance/#sthash.Mr4hk4If.dpuf
Right, but that process began by chance when it is unascribed to an intelligent designer. The point is that by saying what exists came into existence by any other process than by creation is presumptuously arrogant since the whole scientific model is based on a hypothesis turned theory. Evolution is all about chance.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeTheists (and thoughtful scientists) the world over latch onto the chance aspect of evolutionary dogma because that is exactly how it's been preached by its priests from early on.
Why do theists focus so much on the 'random chance' element of evolution yet ignore the fact that there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms at work? - Sure, mutations may be random, but natural selection is like the opposite of random.
'To conceive of evolution as nothing more than blind chance and randomness is the most serious conceptual ...[text shortened]... p://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/why-evolution-isnt-chance/#sthash.Mr4hk4If.dpuf
After some blowback reaction to such silliness, the chance element was toned down considerably.
They still allow an element of chance and randomness to serve as mechanisms, but the emphasis now is more, as they call it, non-random mechanisms.
The chance thing sticks, of course, and the evolutionists have none to blame but themselves.
They can't even get dictionaries to provide the current proper definition so how can they expect the word to get out otherwise?
Perhaps a series of PSA's utilizing Hollywood types?
Saturday morning cartoons with a newly created super-hero, Captain Evolution?
I'm sure those clever folks will think of something to correct the common lay people, and cure their woeful ignorance.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by whodeyRight, so you do not actually accept Evolution by Natural selection which explicitly
I believe that humanoid creatures evolved by God over time and then breathed a life spirit into what we call humans today.
states that no designer was involved and that there was no intelligence guiding the
process.
I'm pretty sure you do not accept the science on human caused global warming
either. So drop the act, I was completely correct in the post you complained about.
Now how about dealing with the substance of the post with respect to the OP, instead
of whining about my accurate portrayal of your beliefs.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, wrong.
So what is your opinion of the article?
It would seem that "random chance" in evolution is but an illusion.
IF it turns out that this interpretation of the implications of string theory stand up,
AND IF the hypothesised particles spoken about in the article are discovered to exist,
AND IF it turns out that this particular version of string theory is experimentally verified,
THEN we MIGHT conclude that the fundamental behaviour of subatomic particles was
non-random instead of random.
However, this is happening at a level way, way way, below the 'random mutations' to DNA
and the 'random mixing' of allele's in sexual reproduction that provide the variations for
the process to natural selection to work on.
Whether gene mutations are random or not is a question entirely independent of whether
the universe is fully deterministic or has an element of randomness.
Indeed when the Theory of Evolution by Natural selection was first published the belief
in science at the time was in a Newtonian clockwork deterministic universe where there
was no 'chance' at the fundamental level at all.
So this proposal, even if true, which is a huge if, still has no implications for evolution whatsoever.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwYeah, because it's not like we have any evidence in the real world of Christians attacking
It's even stupider that people believe Christians bash scientists as deceitful idiots just because they read something in a spirituality forum and took it out of context.
science by [for example] trying to get evolution removed from textbooks and get it replaced
with Christian creationism and so called Intelligent Design.... Oh no wait, we see exactly that.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't dispute scientific findings, rather, I dispute their interpretations. Do I agree with everything Darwin said? No, and neither do you unless you are a racist like he was.
Right, so you do not actually accept Evolution by Natural selection which explicitly
states that no designer was involved and that there was no intelligence guiding the
process.
I'm pretty sure you do not accept the science on human caused global warming
either. So drop the act, I was completely correct in the post you complained about.
Now h ...[text shortened]... e post with respect to the OP, instead
of whining about my accurate portrayal of your beliefs.
As for global warming, the earth is warming and humans do contribute to it. The question is, how much are they contributing to it and to what result? Moreover, is cap and trade a viable solution?
It is a very complicated topic.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwThe moment old chap you say, "but the process began" you are muddling evolution with creation.
[b]"The process of evolution is driven by the engine of natural selection, a filter that extracts order out of chaos according to a fixed and non-random set of rules."
Right, but that process began by chance when it is unascribed to an intelligent designer. The point is that by saying what exists came into existence by any other process than by creati ...[text shortened]... he whole scientific model is based on a hypothesis turned theory. Evolution is all about chance.[/b]
I would indeed struggle to explain how everything came into existence, so was talking specifically about the evolutionary process. If you believe natural selection is based on chance then please explain your position as it really does seem to misunderstand how natural selection works. (For example, it is the survival of the fittest, not survival of the luckiest).
(This is perhaps the wrong thread, but we must also at some point address the use of the term 'theory' when used in a scientific context).
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease explain how natural selection relies predominantly on chance in exactly 23 words (3 of which being varieties of British apples).
Theists (and thoughtful scientists) the world over latch onto the chance aspect of evolutionary dogma because that is exactly how it's been preached by its priests from early on.
After some blowback reaction to such silliness, the chance element was toned down considerably.
They still allow an element of chance and randomness to serve as mechanisms, but ...[text shortened]... folks will think of something to correct the common lay people, and cure their woeful ignorance.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by whodey
I don't dispute scientific findings, rather, I dispute their interpretations. Do I agree with everything Darwin said? No, and neither do you unless you are a racist like he was.
As for global warming, the earth is warming and humans do contribute to it. The question is, how much are they contributing to it and to what result? Moreover, is cap and trade a viable solution?
It is a very complicated topic.
I don't dispute scientific findings, rather, I dispute their interpretations.
The great cop out of those who dispute science. No, you really do not accept science.
Your posts prove it over and over and over again.
Do I agree with everything Darwin said? No, and neither do you unless you are a racist like he was.
No, but then I was talking about the Theory of Evolution by Natural selection and not
"what Darwin said". The theory having been improved and refined substantially since
it was first proposed. Not least in our understanding of common descent of all humans.
As for global warming, the earth is warming and humans do contribute to it.
The question is, how much are they contributing to it and to what result?
Humans are most likely contributing on net 110% to global warming [without our influence the
world would most probably have cooled a bit, so our influence has likely raised the worlds heat
content by more than 100% over baseline because natural effects have tried to lower it over the
same period] and the result is already really really bad.
Again these are scientific conclusions and by questioning them you are unquestionably disputing science.
Moreover, is cap and trade a viable solution?
No, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Global warming is happening
and whether it is caused by us.
Those are two completely separate conversations. And the fact that you, and people
like you always bring up your objections to particular proposed measures to combat
global warming any time discussion turns to whether its real and man-made as a tactic
to make people reject sciences findings [which it absolutely is] is inherently anti-science.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo let me ask you, Darwin was interested in eugenics.I don't dispute scientific findings, rather, I dispute their interpretations.
The great cop out of those who dispute science. No, you really do not accept science.
Your posts prove it over and over and over again.
Do I agree with everything Darwin said? No, and neither do you unless you are a racist like he was.
No ...[text shortened]... c
to make people reject sciences findings [which it absolutely is] is inherently anti-science.
What is you opinion of eugenics?
It has everything to do with the global warming speculation. Cap and trade is being sold to the public by the people saying that global warming is a problem. However, scientists say that cap and trade is nothing but a band aid on the problem and is nothing more than another money making scam.Moreover, is cap and trade a viable solution?
No, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Global warming is happening
and whether it is caused by us.
Those are two completely separate conversations. And the fact that you, and people
like you always bring up your objections to particular proposed measures to combat
global warming any time discussion turns to whet ...[text shortened]... c
to make people reject sciences findings [which it absolutely is] is inherently anti-science.[/b]
So what you have is a liar selling the problems of global warming, which will cause more people to turn away from the issue altogether. It is hard to take seriously politicians who cry that global warming is destroying the earth as they live jet set lives and live in numerous mansions around the world and drive SUV's.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
Ah, I have finally found the 'source' of this idiotic story. Which is a youtube video he did from
about 3 years ago that makes almost none of the claims that the article from the OP, who
just discovered this, says it says.
Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
PZ Myers nails this pretty nicely.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-think-of-michio-kaku/