Faith fails to protect idiot from snake bites.

[Gameface]

I'm not sure where exactly you're jumping into the conversation, but why is "true randomness" as opposed to "divinely-guided randomness" needed in evolutionary processes? And for that matter, how can "true randomness" even exist (whatever that might mean) if there is an omniscient and omnipotent God?

I'm not really trying to jump in. I was just saying, divinely-guided randomness is a contradiction in terms.

I'm a little out of my depth here, but I've never imagined evolution as a random process. Mutations (random) happen constantly and almost never lead to evolution, however when the mutation conforms to the environmental needs of the species in which it has taken place then there is a possibility that mutation will stick and continue to exist in a somewhat diluted form in coming generations. It isn't as though randomly a mutation becomes permanent. The mutation must meet the needs of the species in which it happened, or at the very least not damage them. That isn't particularly random in my opinion.

It would be like if I had a door key. I went around trying it in every door possible. After trying a few million doors I put it in a lock and it works. I had been trying it randomly on every door, but the fact that it opened this particular door was not random...this is the door it fit.

Again, I'm out of my depth here, just wanted to clarify what I saw as a contradiction.

 

[One Brow]

I have found the paper. "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry" by Douglas L. Theobald.

Funny, in your earlier post you referred to "geologist Peter Ward and the astronomer Donald E. Brownlee". I have a sneaking suspicion the paper by Theobald is unrelated to weird probability calculations. Certainly, your description of the paper by Theobald sounded nothing your description of the book by Ward and Brownlee.

I'm not appealing to authority ....

There's nothing wrong with appealing to knowledgeable authorities, like Theobald, in the areas in which they have specialized expertise.

 

[One Brow]

To my understanding, "random" has a different meaning in evolutionary biology than in physics/mathematics. The latter see "random" as meaning stochastically unpredictable and likely uncaused, while the former mean unrelated to the needs fo the organism. That is, a particular mutation is no more likely to appear simply becasue the environment is such that it would help/hurt the organism to get that mutation.

I agree with colton that there is no test for true randomness versus divinely-inspired guidance. However, given the immense brutality of the evolutionary process on the level of individuals and populations, divinely-inspired guidance would come from a divinity that was, at the very least, willing to use such cruelties.

 

[PearlWatson]

So you really don't believe that the mechanism of change is random, but you do believe humans originated from ape like creatures?

Darwinism is fairly reliant on actual randomness, where there appears to be none. It ain't even a case of "seemingly random."

So I would say you really believe in Intelligent Design theory especially with your inclusion of "God's hand."

I guess that's fine if that's what you believe about what I believe, but I would say that anyone who believes in the omniscience/omnipotence of God doesn't believe in true randomness. Think about it.

But why do you say that Darwinism is reliant on actual randomness? I think there's no way to tell between true randomness and divinely-guided randomness.

I'm saying Darwin's theory includes random mutation...meaning the change from simple to more complex is by accident, not design or through an intelligent force. So if you think "God's hand" is involved in the changes you really don't believe in Darwinism at all.

 

[PearlWatson]

If it is "divinely-guided randomness" then it only seems random, but in fact is not random.

But nothing about our bodies and the coordinated processes involved in keeping us alive seem random, they seem designed. It is ludicrous to think any part of us happened by accident (random mutation).

 

[Gameface]

But nothing about our bodies and the coordinated processes involved in keeping us alive seem random, they seem designed. It is ludicrous to think any part of us happened by accident (random mutation).

Again, not by accident at all. As billions upon billions upon trillions of mutations happen over millions of years one piece at a time fits into place and is able to take advantage of previously untapped resources that sustain life. Where's the accident?

Is a two headed snake less complex than a one headed snake? Humm, seems mutations can lead to greater complexity.

 

[PearlWatson]

Again, not by accident at all. As billions upon billions upon trillions of mutations happen over millions of years one piece at a time fits into place and is able to take advantage of previously untapped resources that sustain life. Where's the accident?

You already said the mutations were the accidental part. Plus it is all an accident of nature when you throw in "natural selection."
And the billions upon trillions of mutations with one piece at a time needed for darwinism to be supported don't show up in the fossil record.

Is a two headed snake less complex than a one headed snake? Humm, seems mutations can lead to greater complexity.

No, the additional head is simply a copy of the first head in whatever degree of complexity it has.

 

[Gameface]

But the selections aren't accidental, they are "selected" because they fit.

 

[PearlWatson]

But the selections aren't accidental, they are "selected" because they fit.

I know what you are saying. You think there were accidental mutations that just happened to "fit" something. While I see it the other way around: the mutation are a reaction to the environment; an adaptation. Species were designed(genetic code) to adapt within parameters. Do you see the difference?

 

[One Brow]

No, the additional head is simply a copy of the first head in whatever degree of complexity it has.

By any useful standard of measurement for information and complexity, xqqx is simpler and has less information than xqqxxqqx and xqqxqqx.

 

[One Brow]

Species were designed(genetic code) to adapt within parameters. Do you see the difference?

The difference is that the parameters you describe do not exist in any meaningful sense. A billion years ago our ancesters were single-celled. Half a bilion years ago, they worms basically ocean worms.

There are some 20+ distinct mechaisms in evolution. of which some six involve randomness. Evolution is much more necessity than chance.

 

[Gameface]

I know what you are saying. You think there were accidental mutations that just happened to "fit" something. While I see it the other way around: the mutation are a reaction to the environment; an adaptation. Species were designed(genetic code) to adapt within parameters. Do you see the difference?

Sure. So you're saying that animals DNA can actually respond to their environment and produce a custom fit mutation in an attempt to better take advantage of it? Or are you saying all this was planned out by an omnipotent force at the beginning of time. Or both?