Does evolution happen by chance?

<< < (4/6) > >>

mentari (April 01, 2009, 22:27:57 PM):
And nor did Darwin’s ignorance of genetics invalidate his observations re descent with modification.


It was Halloy's term from his paper in 1848. Halloy was a Catholic theist who believed in God. See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thread/d138b2c03c35d64f. Your concept with Descent with modification isn't the same as Halloy: Why are you then using his term? - what is your concept.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1408

In a recent essay in COMMENTARY, "Has Darwin Met His Match?" (December 2002), I discussed, evaluated, and criticized theories of intelligent design, which have presented the latest challenge to Darwin's theory of evolution. In the course of the discussion I observed that the evolution of the mammalian eye has always seemed difficult to imagine. It is an issue that Darwin himself raised, and although he settled the matter to his own satisfaction, biologists have long wished for a direct demonstration that something like a functional eye could be formed in reasonable periods of time by means of the Darwinian principles of random variation and natural selection.

"....Darwinian principles of random variation and natural selection....."

Note how "random and directed" ,"random + non-random" or "motive + non-motive" is brought in with this sentence. Selection is the protocol string we use to transmit from signal sender to signal receiver the concept of directed, motive, intent and consciousness. "Selection" is not some sort of abstract entity it is a word - semantics, below pragmatics. Like a king is above his subjects pragmatics is above semantics.

The concept that anything is the result of either random or directed,motive,non-random has got nothing to do with "Darwinian principles". It is a disguised truism reformulated in bogus undefined "Darwinian" terminology. It is sad that Berlinski and YEC,ID and EVO fails to notice the truistic nature of the sentence. We are dealing with an underlying myth of sea monsters being slain by Gods, followed by circular reasoning (nobody knows whether Tiktaalik had offspring), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism and http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology sealed with a web of incorrect grammar such as Dawkins ".... if you add in selection...". The word "selectus" can't be added to anything like you would add sugar to coffee, in the same way that John can't crank wooden cheese: it makes no sense.

Mefiante (April 01, 2009, 23:46:45 PM):
Luthon, I don't particularly like this definition because it confuses the process of evolution with the study of evolution (i.e. Biology).
Not really. The process of evolution is the resultant (or the emergent, if you wish) of variations in gene frequencies over successive generations, as determined by all of the factors affecting them. In this way, the definition cuts straight to the heart of the matter, both in terms of what evolution is and what needs to be studied in order to understand it.

Note also that “random” in the context of evolution is not to be taken as meaning “arbitrary” or “indiscriminate” or “chaotic.” As indicated in an earlier post, “random” in this context must be taken to mean that evolution is not goal-directed except perhaps in the same trivial way that a freefalling object can be said to be goal-directed, i.e. as governed by natural laws. This is actually what these discussions with religious nuts are all about: they reject the idea that their existence is effectively an accident because they can’t live without the reassurance that they were meant to be. When you scrape the surface a little, it soon becomes clear that it’s an ego thing, really.




Your concept with Descent with modification isn't the same as Halloy: Why are you then using his term? - what is your concept.
Okay, so once again you’ve taken to your favourite tactic of flogging that tired old semantic goalpost-shifting hobbyhorse of yours, all the while bouncing around in a decidedly unproductive game of intellectual hopscotch. It is no doubt derived from the very wellspring Werner Gitt tapped for his farcical informatics absurdities.

… in the same way that John can't crank wooden cheese: it makes no sense.
Just like your above reply, then. Given the fact that evidently you never actually pay attention to what others tell you, that you never address the counterpoints made to your claims with anything besides the usual incoherent, inconsequent, irrelevant and frequently incomprehensible drivel, and that you post the same nonsense all over the Internet again and again, I’ll no longer engage with you. If you wish a rational discussion with me then I suggest that you abide by the usual rules for such. Those rules would include a modicum of respect for sticking to the topic and also, if nothing else, at least acknowledging counterpoints.

'Luthon64
Rigil Kent (April 02, 2009, 09:10:26 AM):
Quote
Those rules would include a modicum of respect for sticking to the topic and also, if nothing else, at least acknowledging counterpoints

Amen to that!

As an example of how rational and polite discussion should play out, I have queried Luthon's definition of evolution as a field of study in my previous post. She has not just skipped over my query in the hope that it will go away, but immediately offered a rational clarification. While I sort of :-\ see the point, I still think her definition will lead to unnecessary confusion. But I have at least been exposed to a fresh outlook on a topic I thought I knew quite well, and will give it some thought. This is the point of debate. Everyone is a winner if we can put ego aside.

Mintaka
mentari (April 02, 2009, 09:40:45 AM):
The process of evolution is the resultant (or the emergent, if you wish) of variations in gene frequencies over successive generations
Where was this formally established ?

Note also that “random” in the context of evolution is not to be taken as meaning “arbitrary” or “indiscriminate” or “chaotic.”

Who says so ?

As indicated in an earlier post, “random” in this context must be taken to mean that evolution is not goal-directed except perhaps in the same trivial way that a freefalling object can be said to be goal-directed, i.e. as governed by natural laws.

John S. Wilkins from scienceblogs.com says there is no such thing as a natural law. Nobody knows if gravity will be 10m/s.s 5mins from now, we are assuming it will be. Assumptions aren't laws, laws are absolute certainties.
Rigil Kent (April 02, 2009, 09:53:42 AM):
Quote
Quote from: Anacoluthon64 on Yesterday at 23:46:45
The process of evolution is the resultant (or the emergent, if you wish) of variations in gene frequencies over successive generations

Where was this formally established ?


Molecular biology teaches us that genotype determines phenotype. So gradual phenotypic changes in subsequent generations must have its basis in genetic variation.

Quote
Quote from: Anacoluthon64 on Yesterday at 23:46:45
Note also that “random” in the context of evolution is not to be taken as meaning “arbitrary” or “indiscriminate” or “chaotic.”


Who says so ?


You just did:
Quote
Like a king is above his subjects pragmatics is above semantics.

Quote
John S. Wilkins from scienceblogs.com says there is no such thing as a natural law.

Thats good to know. I will keep that in mind next time I walk through a wall.

Mintaka


Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page