religion

[obfuscator]

 

Random implies that every step of the process is equally random, which is far from the case. Once the earth was formed, for instance, life evolving was much more likely given certain aspects of primitive earth.

The universe as it exists today makes a lot of sense based on the laws of nature.

 

The fact is that there's no solid evidence that there was any higher power at work.

 

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there were several billion years of random before the earth was formed. Not to mention, of course, that these "laws of nature" you speak of were also created randomly.

[sees_all1]

The earth's size (and gravitation field), position relative to the Sun (versus the Sun's mass), frequency of rotation on its own axis and frequency of orbit around the sun's axis are all random variables, which if slightly different would not have produced life.

I could set up several integrals to show the totals of the probability mass function for all of those variables, and I'd estimate that the total probability of a planet of the right size spinning at the right speed in the right orbit is less than one in 10^10.

Given that the planet is in the right spot, the probability that it is composed of the right materials (enough water, nitrogen, and hydrocarbons for life to occur) is probably a similar amount, one in 10^100.

Given that the planet HAS the right materials and is in the right spot, the probability of life occurring is a continuous function over time, very slowly increasing to 1. Life occurred approximately 800 million years after earth as we know it formed, I'd estimate the probability of that happening that quickly (800 million years or less) to be close to 1 in 100.

 

Now that life has occurred, it has to evolve. The only way life can evolve is through mutations, some random occurrence changing the organism and its offspring. This is known as a mutation. Heuristically speaking, the probability of a successful mutation decreases with the complexity of the organism, but increases with the total population of an organism.

Also, the relative frequency of mutation decreases the survival rate of an organism, which also gets back to the planet's position.

 

We know that the number of species worldwide is somewhere greater than 1.7 million, so if you think about it the 1.7 million is the least number of successful mutations that could have possibly occurred to get from one life form to all current life forms. I'm guessing its closer to (1.7 million) ^2 for extinct species and the chains of subspecies required to get there.

A very rough estimate is the probability of 1.7 million species after 3.8 billion years is on the order of 0 to 1 in a thousand, with my bet at 1 in 10^8.

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^120, which is why I say its too random.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

 

Random implies that every step of the process is equally random, which is far from the case. Once the earth was formed, for instance, life evolving was much more likely given certain aspects of primitive earth.

The universe as it exists today makes a lot of sense based on the laws of nature.

 

The fact is that there's no solid evidence that there was any higher power at work.

 

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there were several billion years of random before the earth was formed. Not to mention, of course, that these "laws of nature" you speak of were also created randomly.

 

It's still somewhat a misnomer to call it "random". Procedural would be more precise.

 

That also doesn't change that there's no evidence for any kind of creator.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

{lots of bad math and assumptions}

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^120, which is why I say its too random.

 

Many problems with this. The big one is that we don't have other data points. We don't know of other planets where life has evolved. We don't have other universes to compare. Therefore, the probability of life evolving as it has on our planet is incalculable. There isn't enough information to get a true answer.

 

Furthermore, your assumption would maybe be kind of correct if you were calculating the probability of a specific species evolving, but, according to our best data the probability that, once started, life will proliferate and mutate to fill all available niches, assuming it doesn't die out completely, over time is approximately 100%.

[obfuscator]

 

Random implies that every step of the process is equally random, which is far from the case. Once the earth was formed, for instance, life evolving was much more likely given certain aspects of primitive earth.

The universe as it exists today makes a lot of sense based on the laws of nature.

 

The fact is that there's no solid evidence that there was any higher power at work.

 

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there were several billion years of random before the earth was formed. Not to mention, of course, that these "laws of nature" you speak of were also created randomly.

 

It's still somewhat a misnomer to call it "random". Procedural would be more precise.

 

That also doesn't change that there's no evidence for any kind of creator.

 

I hate to argue over the little things but procedural clearly implies some sort of guidance. If, as you claim, there is no creator, nor can there be; even evolution cannot have been procedural.

[MPM]

Procedural does not mean it requires guidance. It means that a set number of rules (physics) were followed to create the current universe.

Gravity condenses gases together to form a sun. Solid materials condense and form planets. These planets revolve around a sun. On some planets that are in the "goldilocks belt" and have the right conditions, amino acids can form from the atoms that are available.

These amino acids would become more complex based on their interactions with other molecules. These complex structures(coacervate) would be the first "life". They will compete for resources to become bigger and reproduce by splitting. Evolution has begun.

Slowly, these coacervates become more and more complex by including various structures, such as a lipid membrane and become what we would consider cells. Again, this is done proceduraly, based on the rules of chemical reactions and physics. If a coacervate had tried to incorporate a membrane that would dissolve in the substance it floats in, that iteration would have failed.

 

Now, you say that the universe and the rules that created it had to have a creator, but I disagree. Right now, we don't know how everything was created, but the idea of a creator is more preposterous than any scientific explanation that I've heard. The basic logic of people who believe in a creator is "The universe is too complex to happen 'randomly'. There must have been a creator". A creator completely defies that statement. If there is a creator, it would have to be more complex than what it is creating. Hence, who made the creator?

 

Hey there wyrm, long time.

[sees_all1]

{lots of bad math and assumptions}

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^120, which is why I say its too random.

 

Many problems with this. The big one is that we don't have other data points. We don't know of other planets where life has evolved. We don't have other universes to compare. Therefore, the probability of life evolving as it has on our planet is incalculable. There isn't enough information to get a true answer.

 

Furthermore, your assumption would maybe be kind of correct if you were calculating the probability of a specific species evolving, but, according to our best data the probability that, once started, life will proliferate and mutate to fill all available niches, assuming it doesn't die out completely, over time is approximately 100%.

Here's a six sided die. You get to roll it once. Oh, you rolled a 6. What was the probability you'd roll a 6?

You only rolled it once, we don't have other data points. We don't know what the other rolls would be, but we can make reasonable and logical assumptions. Six sided die? Six outcomes. Probability of rolling a six? Less than one, greater than zero, could be somewhere around 1/6.

 

Also, I'm not calculating the probability of a specific species, I'm calculating the probability of the number of all known species. The probability of a specific species (such as humans, for example) would be MUCH lower - like the probability that their genome was a very specific length (30000 instead of 30001), and contained very specific values (like ACGTTTAATTGCCC versus GCGTTTAATTGCCC) which decreases at a very rapid one in 4^(length of key DNA) or less for complex life.

 

 

A better critique would have been that my probability was just for a given planet being earth, and not for all planets in the universe.

If that was the case, you'd sum it up as a geometric distribution sum[k=1, k=n planets] {(1/10^120)*(1 - 1/10^120)^k)

That number wouldn't approach anything remotely close to a small number for anything less than n=10^40, and I don't think there can be that many planets.

 

Which is why I say its too random.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

{lots of bad math and assumptions}

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^120, which is why I say its too random.

 

Many problems with this. The big one is that we don't have other data points. We don't know of other planets where life has evolved. We don't have other universes to compare. Therefore, the probability of life evolving as it has on our planet is incalculable. There isn't enough information to get a true answer.

 

Furthermore, your assumption would maybe be kind of correct if you were calculating the probability of a specific species evolving, but, according to our best data the probability that, once started, life will proliferate and mutate to fill all available niches, assuming it doesn't die out completely, over time is approximately 100%.

Here's a six sided die. You get to roll it once. Oh, you rolled a 6. What was the probability you'd roll a 6?

You only rolled it once, we don't have other data points. We don't know what the other rolls would be, but we can make reasonable and logical assumptions. Six sided die? Six outcomes. Probability of rolling a six? Less than one, greater than zero, could be somewhere around 1/6.

 

Also, I'm not calculating the probability of a specific species, I'm calculating the probability of the number of all known species. The probability of a specific species (such as humans, for example) would be MUCH lower - like the probability that their genome was a very specific length (30000 instead of 30001), and contained very specific values (like ACGTTTAATTGCCC versus GCGTTTAATTGCCC) which decreases at a very rapid one in 4^(length of key DNA) or less for complex life.

 

 

A better critique would have been that my probability was just for a given planet being earth, and not for all planets in the universe.

If that was the case, you'd sum it up as a geometric distribution sum[k=1, k=n planets] {(1/10^120)*(1 - 1/10^120)^k)

That number wouldn't approach anything remotely close to a small number for anything less than n=10^40, and I don't think there can be that many planets.

 

Which is why I say its too random.

 

Ugh. This is why I hate bringing statistics into this discussion, it gets too messy.

 

Even if I were to grant you that the probabilities are absurdly small, what does that gain you? You say that the probability is "too low". Why is it too low? What other data do you have to make the claim that life could not have developed the way science tells us it has?

You're making an argument from incredulity. It's just straight-up fallacious logic.

 

Hai Misplaced! How's it going?

[deathmeow]

my religion is me. I'm my own god.

[obfuscator]

Procedural does not mean it requires guidance. It means that a set number of rules (physics) were followed to create the current universe.

Gravity condenses gases together to form a sun. Solid materials condense and form planets. These planets revolve around a sun. On some planets that are in the "goldilocks belt" and have the right conditions, amino acids can form from the atoms that are available.

These amino acids would become more complex based on their interactions with other molecules. These complex structures(coacervate) would be the first "life". They will compete for resources to become bigger and reproduce by splitting. Evolution has begun.

Slowly, these coacervates become more and more complex by including various structures, such as a lipid membrane and become what we would consider cells. Again, this is done proceduraly, based on the rules of chemical reactions and physics. If a coacervate had tried to incorporate a membrane that would dissolve in the substance it floats in, that iteration would have failed.

 

 

A set number of rules(physics) like you said, were followed to create the current universe. Where did these laws of physics come from? Randomly, according to "our best scientific guess".

 

Disregarded the second part as I wasn't claiming such a creator existed.

[Myweponsg00d]

For Y_guy

All he's trying to do is call a horse a horse - random is random, and if you believe that there is no creator or higher being then the universe cannot have been anything but random.

 

I don't know if I'd call it unrealistic or illogical, but certainly it is highly improbable.

 

Here we go again. Random is not the same damn thing as improbable. If I have 100 different pennies in my pocket, all the same except for one, what is the chance that I will pick one of the 99 pennies? It is 99%. This is random. But, the fact that it is random doesn't mean that all other events are equally probable...I just don't understand the correlation that is being made between random and improbable.

 

 

A set number of rules(physics) like you said, were followed to create the current universe. Where did these laws of physics come from? Randomly, according to "our best scientific guess".

 

Disregarded the second part as I wasn't claiming such a creator existed.

 

Again, even if they came about randomly, this doesn't mean our universe was improbable. Some think that there are billions, trillions, or an even larger number of other universes that might exist outside of ours. If this is true, then yes, the chances of any particular universe being randomly selected would be small. BUT the chances of our universe existing at all approaches 1 as the number of universes approaches infinity.

 

Also, this is assuming that some physical constants, such as speed of light and Planck's constant, can even be altered at all. Would you say "Boy, it sure is lucky that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is 3.14159........"? No. You wouldn't this is simply the only way that a circle could ever exist. Some people are also of the thought that perhaps the only way "a universe" could ever exist is if Planck's constant is 6.62 x 10^-34

 

 

 

 

 

=========================================================================

 

For sees_all

The earth's size (and gravitation field), position relative to the Sun (versus the Sun's mass), frequency of rotation on its own axis and frequency of orbit around the sun's axis are all random variables, which if slightly different would not have produced life.

I could set up several integrals to show the totals of the probability mass function for all of those variables, and I'd estimate that the total probability of a planet of the right size spinning at the right speed in the right orbit is less than one in 10^10.

Given that the planet is in the right spot, the probability that it is composed of the right materials (enough water, nitrogen, and hydrocarbons for life to occur) is probably a similar amount, one in 10^100.

Did you just call 10^100 similar to 10^10? I'm going to assume you meant 10^10 for both of these...

Given that the planet HAS the right materials and is in the right spot, the probability of life occurring is a continuous function over time, very slowly increasing to 1. Life occurred approximately 800 million years after earth as we know it formed, I'd estimate the probability of that happening that quickly (800 million years or less) to be close to 1 in 100.

 

Okay.

 

Now that life has occurred, it has to evolve. The only way life can evolve is through mutations, some random occurrence changing the organism and its offspring. This is known as a mutation. Heuristically speaking, the probability of a successful mutation decreases with the complexity of the organism, but increases with the total population of an organism.

Also, the relative frequency of mutation decreases the survival rate of an organism, which also gets back to the planet's position.

 

This is a lot of complete biological nonsense. It sounds like you got this info from a creationist book where the author just wants to disprove evolution.

 

 

We know that the number of species worldwide is somewhere greater than 1.7 million, so if you think about it the 1.7 million is the least number of successful mutations that could have possibly occurred to get from one life form to all current life forms. I'm guessing its closer to (1.7 million) ^2 for extinct species and the chains of subspecies required to get there.

A very rough estimate is the probability of 1.7 million species after 3.8 billion years is on the order of 0 to 1 in a thousand, with my bet at 1 in 10^8.

 

Again, this is complete nonsense. Evolution is not the same thing as random chance. Evolution is guaranteed to occur and it is guaranteed that the best traits will be passed on. It is not an accident that we have the species that we have: they evolved because they work. They did not evolve out of random luck!

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^22, which is why I say its too random.

 

In this last quote, I fixed your second number to 1/10^10 and crossed out the last number because quite frankly it just doesnt make any sense. It is complete nonsense to take a statistical estimate based on the number of species. If you think it makes sense, you really must educate yourself on biology.

 

So if we correct your crazy mistakes what we get is a chance of 1/10^22 for having a planet like Earth.

 

There are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and each of these galaxies contain at LEAST a billion stars. For ease of estimate, lets say that each galaxy contains exactly 1 billion. That right there puts us at 10^20 stars in the universe.

 

So if we use your corrected estimate of 1/10^22 and compare this to a very slim estimate of 10^20 stars in the universe, the Earth would only have to overcome odds of 1/100 to actually make it into existence.

 

If we nevermind the fact that your probability estimates are a lot lot lower than the estimates of people who spend their lifetimes studying this stuff (most estimates I have seen place the odds at 10^-9 through 10^-10), we still see that there is a fairly decent chance of Earth existing. Also I grossly underestimated the number of stars in each galaxy. Some have upwards of 100s of billions.

 

 

 

Here's a six sided die. You get to roll it once. Oh, you rolled a 6. What was the probability you'd roll a 6?

You only rolled it once, we don't have other data points. We don't know what the other rolls would be, but we can make reasonable and logical assumptions. Six sided die? Six outcomes. Probability of rolling a six? Less than one, greater than zero, could be somewhere around 1/6.

 

Also, I'm not calculating the probability of a specific species, I'm calculating the probability of the number of all known species. The probability of a specific species (such as humans, for example) would be MUCH lower - like the probability that their genome was a very specific length (30000 instead of 30001), and contained very specific values (like ACGTTTAATTGCCC versus GCGTTTAATTGCCC) which decreases at a very rapid one in 4^(length of key DNA) or less for complex life.

 

 

A better critique would have been that my probability was just for a given planet being earth, and not for all planets in the universe.

If that was the case, you'd sum it up as a geometric distribution sum[k=1, k=n planets] {(1/10^120)*(1 - 1/10^120)^k)

That number wouldn't approach anything remotely close to a small number for anything less than n=10^40, and I don't think there can be that many planets.

 

Which is why I say its too random.

 

Again, this post is total and complete nonsense. Using the number of species in any time of probability calculation is so nonsensical that I can't even begin to address it.

[sees_all1]

Now that life has occurred, it has to evolve. The only way life can evolve is through mutations, some random occurrence changing the organism and its offspring. This is known as a mutation. Heuristically speaking, the probability of a successful mutation decreases with the complexity of the organism, but increases with the total population of an organism.

Also, the relative frequency of mutation decreases the survival rate of an organism, which also gets back to the planet's position.

 

This is a lot of complete biological nonsense. It sounds like you got this info from a creationist book where the author just wants to disprove evolution.

It sounds like you've never read a biology book.

 

Again, this is complete nonsense. Evolution is not the same thing as random chance. Evolution is guaranteed to occur and it is guaranteed that the best traits will be passed on. It is not an accident that we have the species that we have: they evolved because they work. They did not evolve out of random luck!

How many traits did the first organism have? Did it have blue eyes or green eyes? Was it short or tall? Oh wait, it didn't have any of those. The only way for a new species to form is through mutations, not genetic variation.

 

In this last quote, I fixed your second number to 1/10^10 and crossed out the last number because quite frankly it just doesnt make any sense. It is complete nonsense to take a statistical estimate based on the number of species. If you think it makes sense, you really must educate yourself on biology.

Remind me again, whats the definition of a mutation? Because it sounds like you have no clue, and its a rather large part to the theory of evolution.

[Myweponsg00d]

Now that life has occurred, it has to evolve. The only way life can evolve is through mutations, some random occurrence changing the organism and its offspring. This is known as a mutation. Heuristically speaking, the probability of a successful mutation decreases with the complexity of the organism, but increases with the total population of an organism.

Also, the relative frequency of mutation decreases the survival rate of an organism, which also gets back to the planet's position.

 

This is a lot of complete biological nonsense. It sounds like you got this info from a creationist book where the author just wants to disprove evolution.

It sounds like you've never read a biology book.

 

I guess we again have just reached a point of disagreement. If you are honestly convinced that you understand biology and you aren't willing to accept the fact that you are clueless about a lot of things in biology, then theres nothing more we can discuss to this point.

 

How many traits did the first organism have? Did it have blue eyes or green eyes? Was it short or tall? Oh wait, it didn't have any of those. The only way for a new species to form is through mutations, not genetic variation.

 

Again I assert that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Are we talking about the first one celled organism? It still has genetic information contained in DNA. There are many traits of a single celled organizm that are coded in its DNA (example: how do I get food? how to a make waste?). Future generations of this organizm would be able to have slightly different information in their genes regarding any number of a cell's basic functions.

 

Remind me again, whats the definition of a mutation? Because it sounds like you have no clue, and its a rather large part to the theory of evolution.

 

Remind me again, what is the theory of evolution? Because it sounds like you have no clue.

 

Mutations are random. But is it random that successful mutations get passed on to future generations? No. Beneficial mutations, as well as harmful mutations, are bound to happen as the species replicates. The beneficial mutations are bound to be passed on to future generations in higher quantities. There is no luck involved. It is no accident that we have eyes. Organisms were bound to develop eyes on Earth because of the wavelength of light emitted by our Sun. You can't put a probability on this like 1 in 10^6 or whatever number you choose, because it isn't something that happened by luck. Eyes were guaranteed to develop on a life-bearing planet that recieves light with wavelength 400-800nm.

 

You make it sound like it is some strike of luck that an intelligent being with eyes, ears, aposable thumbs, etc happened to evolve. It is not luck. It is evolution. The only sort of luck involved is that we have been lucky enough not to suffer a collision with a giant asteroid that destroyed all life on Earth.

 

It just isn't luck. Stop comparing anything dealing with evolution with luck, chance, etc. Evolution is not luck. No luck. Just stop it. One of the most stereotypical creationist arguments is "But what about a tornado ripping through a junkyard and making a plane?" Its crap. This is not an argument because evolution doesn't say that humans had a low liklihood of developing. It simply is not related to luck. And no ammount of fact-denying or creation-science is going to change that.

[sees_all1]

Mutations are random. But is it random that successful mutations get passed on to future generations?

OMFG is your theory that some fish gave birth to a [developmentally delayed]ed air breathing monkey fish thing!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

-.-

[Myweponsg00d]

Mutations are random. But is it random that successful mutations get passed on to future generations?

OMFG is your theory that some fish gave birth to a [developmentally delayed]ed air breathing monkey fish thing!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

-.-

 

What on earth are you talking about? How did I imply this from what I have said?

[sees_all1]

Mutations are random. But is it random that successful mutations get passed on to future generations?

OMFG is your theory that some fish gave birth to a [developmentally delayed]ed air breathing monkey fish thing!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

-.-

 

What on earth are you talking about? How did I imply this from what I have said?

 

You didn't imply anything. You explicitly said it:

The first lifeform wouldn't have had any genetic variation, which is why "survival of the fittest" doesn't explain how all of life came to be.

 

What in the hell are you talking about? All living organisms have genetic variation.

The first life form to appear on earth has absolutely no genetic variation. How can there be genetic variation in just one organism? There isn't any!

 

 

Because there is no such thing as a carcinogen.

This is another "WTF?!!?!" moment. What are you talking about and how does a carcinogen have anything to do with evolution?

How ignorant are you?

What causes genetic variation? Mutations. What is cancer? A malignant mutation. What causes cancer? Carcinogens, radiation, the same thing that causes mutations.

 

Okay bro, whatever you say. You seem to be totally messed up on what your idea of DNA replication is. There are many reasons that produce slight variation in organisms, and none of them have anything to do with cancer, carcinogens, radiation, or whatever other crazy ideas you have dreamt up. The first lifeform to exist on Earth certainly replicated to have variation in successive generations. You think the only reason people look different is cause some kind of carcinogen interfered in our reproduction?? :blink:

 

Go back to high school and pay attention in Biology class.

 

Your idea of evolution seems to be that one day, a fish gave birth to a freak mutant baby who could walk on land and breathe air. This is absolute nonsense.

[Myweponsg00d]

I don't understand...

 

I was saying that YOU seem to be of the misconception that evolution predicts that one species randomly gives birth to freak mutants of other species and they fight to the death.

[obfuscator]

 

 

Here we go again. Random is not the same damn thing as improbable. If I have 100 different pennies in my pocket, all the same except for one, what is the chance that I will pick one of the 99 pennies? It is 99%. This is random. But, the fact that it is random doesn't mean that all other events are equally probable...I just don't understand the correlation that is being made between random and improbable.

 

I never said it was improbable? I said that if you say a creator does not exist, then the universe cannot have been created anything but randomly.

 

 

Again, even if they came about randomly, this doesn't mean our universe was improbable. Some think that there are billions, trillions, or an even larger number of other universes that might exist outside of ours. If this is true, then yes, the chances of any particular universe being randomly selected would be small. BUT the chances of our universe existing at all approaches 1 as the number of universes approaches infinity.

 

Also, this is assuming that some physical constants, such as speed of light and Planck's constant, can even be altered at all. Would you say "Boy, it sure is lucky that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is 3.14159........"? No. You wouldn't this is simply the only way that a circle could ever exist. Some people are also of the thought that perhaps the only way "a universe" could ever exist is if Planck's constant is 6.62 x 10^-34

See above.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

 

Here we go again. Random is not the same damn thing as improbable. If I have 100 different pennies in my pocket, all the same except for one, what is the chance that I will pick one of the 99 pennies? It is 99%. This is random. But, the fact that it is random doesn't mean that all other events are equally probable...I just don't understand the correlation that is being made between random and improbable.

 

I never said it was improbable? I said that if you say a creator does not exist, then the universe cannot have been created anything but randomly.

 

 

Again, even if they came about randomly, this doesn't mean our universe was improbable. Some think that there are billions, trillions, or an even larger number of other universes that might exist outside of ours. If this is true, then yes, the chances of any particular universe being randomly selected would be small. BUT the chances of our universe existing at all approaches 1 as the number of universes approaches infinity.

 

Also, this is assuming that some physical constants, such as speed of light and Planck's constant, can even be altered at all. Would you say "Boy, it sure is lucky that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is 3.14159........"? No. You wouldn't this is simply the only way that a circle could ever exist. Some people are also of the thought that perhaps the only way "a universe" could ever exist is if Planck's constant is 6.62 x 10^-34

See above.

 

So then what does the randomness have to do with anything? It is random, so what? Lots of things are random.

[sees_all1]

I don't understand...

 

I was saying that YOU seem to be of the misconception that evolution predicts that one species randomly gives birth to freak mutants of other species and they fight to the death.

Let me point out that when you said:

There are many reasons that produce slight variation in organisms, and none of them have anything to do with cancer, carcinogens, radiation, or whatever other crazy ideas you have dreamt up.

I laughed at you. And I absolutely disagree with you on that point, and it would take someone without a clue as to what a mutation is, or how it works in evolution, to say it. I'm calling you out on your ignorance.

Anyhow, it seems you've wised up to the fact that mutation is very pertinent to evolution and genetic variation, and that evolution at its very core is a mutation of species - changes in their DNA - and that mutations are purely random.

 

I don't feel like discussing this anymore, I've got too much to do. You all take care now.

[Myweponsg00d]

I don't understand...

 

I was saying that YOU seem to be of the misconception that evolution predicts that one species randomly gives birth to freak mutants of other species and they fight to the death.

Let me point out that when you said:

There are many reasons that produce slight variation in organisms, and none of them have anything to do with cancer, carcinogens, radiation, or whatever other crazy ideas you have dreamt up.

I laughed at you. And I absolutely disagree with you on that point, and it would take someone without a clue as to what a mutation is, or how it works in evolution, to say it. I'm calling you out on your ignorance.

Anyhow, it seems you've wised up to the fact that mutation is very pertinent to evolution and genetic variation, and that evolution at its very core is a mutation of species - changes in their DNA - and that mutations are purely random.

 

But it has nothing to do with cancer and all that other crap you mentioned. I have this picture in my mind that you think that evolution suggests that one-legged organisms were walking around, and then were subject to radiation, and gave birth to two-legged freak babies. This isn't the case at all. DNA has random variations that occur during replication, and it has nothing to do with cancer and tumors that needed to be caused by some kind of radiation. It also has nothing to do with people who get exposed to radiation and then give birth to babies with 4 thumbs on one hand.

 

Change just happens.

[obfuscator]

So then what does the randomness have to do with anything? It is random, so what? Lots of things are random.

 

Are they? I've yet to see a situation in our present life where true random has been replicated.

 

 

And my point was merely to address the point some people were making saying that the universe was not random.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

I don't understand...

 

I was saying that YOU seem to be of the misconception that evolution predicts that one species randomly gives birth to freak mutants of other species and they fight to the death.

Let me point out that when you said:

There are many reasons that produce slight variation in organisms, and none of them have anything to do with cancer, carcinogens, radiation, or whatever other crazy ideas you have dreamt up.

I laughed at you. And I absolutely disagree with you on that point, and it would take someone without a clue as to what a mutation is, or how it works in evolution, to say it. I'm calling you out on your ignorance.

Anyhow, it seems you've wised up to the fact that mutation is very pertinent to evolution and genetic variation, and that evolution at its very core is a mutation of species - changes in their DNA - and that mutations are purely random.

 

I don't feel like discussing this anymore, I've got too much to do. You all take care now.

 

It's true that mutations are random. What does that gain you? Advantageous mutations mean that individual is more likely to reproduce and pass that mutation onto it's offspring. This is the heart of evolution.

[Myweponsg00d]

So then what does the randomness have to do with anything? It is random, so what? Lots of things are random.

 

Are they? I've yet to see a situation in our present life where true random has been replicated.

 

 

We just defined random as being something that happens by chance. Lots of things happen by chance. Are you saying that the chance of DNA mutating or the Earth forming is somehow different from the chance of a die being rolled? What are you talking about "replicating" randomness?

 

And my point was merely to address the point some people were making saying that the universe was not random.

 

Because it depends on how you look at it. If you flip a million coins, and you look at a coin that landed heads up, would you say "Wow how random!". It was almost certain that a coin would land heads up.

 

The word "random" was being used to mean "an event that easily could not have occurred". If this is your definition of random, then the origins of the Earth were not random.

 

If you want to use the proper definition of random, then yes, it was random. But this definition of random implies nothing about how likely the event is.

[obfuscator]

 

We just defined random as being something that happens by chance. Lots of things happen by chance. Are you saying that the chance of DNA mutating or the Earth forming is somehow different from the chance of a die being rolled? What are you talking about "replicating" randomness?

 

I'm talking about something that was truly random. You can flip a coin, yes, but the result is directly controlled by things like wind speed, coin weight, and how hard you flick it, so that there's in fact nothing random about the coin flipping. It merely has the appearance of being random.

 

Same goes for pulling paper out of a hat, using a computer to generate a "random" number, etc etc.

 

Yes, I'm using the proper definition.