Non-random evolution

[Ray Martinez]

Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.

To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness. Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random? After a number of replies I will reveal where non-random is obtained.

Make no mistake, I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work by authoring this topic.

Ray

[Alpha Beta]

The core mechanism of evolution is random genetic errors, which is really laughable. Why does a cell and DNA exist in the first place and is able to fully copy, read and write DNA? Evolutionists argue its purpose is its incapability of fully copying DNA.

[Robert Camp]

On 3/6/17 12:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the
> claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random
> process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other
> Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by
> definition, non-random.

Please stop asking where people "obtain the idea." People read, go to
classes, educate themselves. Try it.

> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or
> natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness.

*Every* definition of evolution or natural selection you've seen
includes the concept of non-randomness.

> Do I
> know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes,
> I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party,
> preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of
> non-random?

Well, I suppose the idea of non-random is "obtained" by acculturation.
One is born, exposed to and taught language (in my case, English), and
learns to use the concepts and protocols inherent in that process.
"Non-random" is essentially necessarily "obtained" by my cerebral cortex
in the process of becoming familiar with the idea of "random."

Of course, if, in your poorly-written and muddled style of
communication, you are asking where the idea of non-random enters the
meaning of *natural selection*, the answer is simpler, though related.
Just consult a dictionary, it's in the word (and concept of) "selection."

By continuing down the path of
denying-that-words-mean-what-everyone-else-knows-they-mean, you further
indict your mental condition.

<snip nonsense>

[RMcBane]

I developed my understanding of random and
non-random from statistic and math courses. The
problem I see is that you keep trying to equate
random with non-design and non-random with design.
But these terms refer to different ideas and have
different meanings.

It is comparable to saying that red = large and
small = blue. Then claiming that it is impossible
for there to be a large blue car or a small red
car. Of course that would be an idiotic
statement. But you insist on using random = not
designed and non-random = designed. But only an
insane individual would bother to argue this with
you as you make up your own definitions and have a
poor understanding of what many words mean.

Where did you get the idea that non-random =
design and random = not designed?

Is a fair roulette wheel designed? Does it
produce random or non-random results?



--
Richard McBane

[Sean Dillon]

Let's take you through this again, using a herd of gazelle as our example.

In any given population, there is going to be a variety of breeding success. Some members will breed extensively, some with breed a little, and some won't get to breed at all. The result of this is that, in the next generation, the offspring of the highly successful breeders will be highly represented, the mediocre breeders will be somewhat represented, and the non-breeders... well, they won't be represented at all. That's natural selection.

We also know that, within a population, individuals will have a variety of qualities. Some faster, some slower, some smarter, some dumber, etc. etc. Since we're dealing with gazelle here, let's focus in on speed.

If natural selection were random, every gazelle would have the same odds of being a successful breeder. Success would be randomly distributed. Regardless of how fast or slow a gazelle is, it would have an equal shot at being highly represented in the next generation.

But that isn't what we observe. What we observe is that, as a general rule, faster gazelle tend to out-survive slower gazelle, because slower gazelle get caught and eaten by lions. As such, the faster gazelles will have greater breeding success, and their offspring be more highly represented in future generations. There is a NON-RANDOM RELATIONSHIP between a gazelle's speed and its odds of being a successful breeder. Faster gazelles tend to survive and breed, slower gazelles tend to get eaten.

That is natural selection as we see it in the world, and its impact on the population over time is non-random. To whit: if a population is under selective pressure, natural selection will always push a population, generation after generation, in the direction of whatever qualities promote successful breeding.

I have a feeling that this whole thing may hinge on the meaning you're attributing to the word random. So let me be clear, the applicable definition of "random" here is the one that is applicable to statistics: "being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence." (m-w.com) In this context, the word has nothing to do specifically with lacking an intent or plan, and has everything to do with a lack of a pattern. Random, in this context, just means that any outcome is equally likely.

Natural selection is non-random, because the outcomes of natural selection are not all equally likely. They form a pattern.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
>
> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness. Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random?

If you mean the non-randomness of NS, why, from observing nature, where
else? In particular from observing that sometimes, a certain trait will
give members of a species that display the trait a much greater chance
to reproduce, in a highly predictable way, and sometimes a much lower
chance, equally in a predictable way.

This is what we call natural selection. In any specific case, it allows
us to do 2 things: first, to make a prediction about the future and the
likely change in frequency of that trait, and second, to give a
specific and testable explanation of why the trait is increasing or
deceasing in frequency.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bc4bb809-6857-4598...@googlegroups.com...

Sigh. You need another 20 years? So far you haven't refuted anything, is it
possible you started from the wrong end?

[Rolf]

 

 

 

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:295b4d1e-d702-4c06...@googlegroups.com...

> The core mechanism of evolution is random genetic errors, which is really laughable. Why does a cell and DNA exist in the first place and is able to fully copy, read and write DNA? Evolutionists argue its purpose is its incapability of fully copying DNA.
>

 

I note that you are confused and clueless on genetics.

 

It is much to simple to describe what takes place in the reproductive life within a population - the arena of the evolutionary process as 'random genetic errors'. I furher note that your words above doesn't make much sense, you seem to be very confused about all of genetics. I recommend you read a few books to learn some of what you obviously don't know. That's what books are for. Any idiot may make stupid claims and ask stupid questions.  

 

What do you mean by "Evolutionists argue its purpose is its incapability of fully copying DNA."?

[Alpha Beta]

Genetics is creationist science. Gregor Mendel.
And what does have that to do with anything? Since evolutionists cannot explain the requirements to kickstart evolution, nobody takes their theory seriously.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:09:57 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 7. März 2017 13:59:57 UTC+1 schrieb Rolf:

[snip]

> > What do you mean by "Evolutionists argue its purpose is its incapability of
> > fully copying DNA."?
>
> Genetics is creationist science. Gregor Mendel.

Only by default, since the Theory of Evolution didn't exist until around the time he died of old age. Not that it matters. Genetics ended up providing a key piece of evidence for the Theory of Evolution by providing the mechanism for inheritance of traits to occur. Genetics and evolutionary biology have long since been utterly integrated, and you'd be hard pressed to find geneticists today who do not accept the Theory of Evolution as accurate. Indeed, evidence from the genome provides many of the most compelling demonstrations of the Theory of Evolution's accuracy.

> And what does have that to do with anything? Since evolutionists cannot explain the requirements to kickstart evolution, nobody takes their theory seriously.

Actually, worldwide, considerably more people believe in evolution than in creationism. And again, virtually all scientists in the life sciences accept the Theory of Evolution. In fact, the only folks who DON'T "take evolution seriously" seem to be Christian and Muslim religious extremists, who cling to a scientifically untenable reading of their holy books, driving them to twist, ignore, or willfully misunderstand the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution does not ATTEMPT to explain the origin of life, so that really isn't an issue. Even IF God had "boinked" the first cell down onto Earth, the Theory of Evolution would STILL provide the best explanation for everything that has happened since, because it is the best fit to the evidence.

However, we don't have to depend on the "God boinked life" explanation, because there are a number of plausible hypotheses for Abiogenesis, waiting for someone to find a way to test them.

[Alpha Beta]

Which important scientist prefered evolution over creation? I can name countless important scientists who believed in creation, including the fathers of modern physics. Evolution is wrong to the extent it's taught, life changes because it was intended by the creator. Look at the countless variants of Darwins finches, only the beak adapted, this rather supports creation and not evolution. With evolution I mean molecule or fish or ape to humans.

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:36:29 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

My impression is humanity will harness fusion before Ray completes his
"refutation".
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 06:02:18 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Look at the countless variants of Darwins finches, only the beak adapted,

Actually, the beaks are only the most obvious changes. This isn't
surprising, considering their shape determines how successfully birds
can eat the available food.

>this rather supports creation and not evolution.

Really? So why can't your Creator get the beak shape right the first
time?

>With evolution I mean molecule or fish or ape to humans.

What's the point of you defining evolution in a way that you say can't
happen?

[Alpha Beta]

Life is designed to reprogram itself when required.

[John Bode]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:04:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:

> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of
> fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I
> asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said
> natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
>
> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural
> selection that included the concept of non-randomness.

You haven't looked very hard, then.

> We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully
> 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they
> come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step
> transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities
> sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive
> change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, *relative
> to its predecessor*, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence
> of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you
> consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original
> starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom
> survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this
> *cumulative selection* as a fundamentally nonrandom process.

Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker", Chapter 3. A PDF is available at

http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

Variation is random - the environment in which reproduction occurs (at
the molecular level, at least) is subject to random noise, and this noise
can affect assembly of base pairs as DNA is being replicated.

Selection is *not* random - like a sieve only lets through particles smaller
than a given size, selection only allows certain variants to out-reproduce
their peers. Not all variants are viable; among viable variants, the
environment acts as a sieve, only letting through the more successful
variants.

Lather, rinse repeat.

[Robert Camp]

So, what you are saying is that God designed life with the capacity to
react to local environmental conditions and alter it's physical
constituents so that its descendants might have a better chance to
survive - all without external transcendental intervention. Is this
correct?

[Alpha Beta]

Yes. This has been observed, but ape to human has never been proven.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 10:49:57 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
[snip]

>
> Yes. This has been observed, but ape to human has never been proven.

Nothing in science is ever proven, because that's not how science works. Proof is for math and whiskey, as the saying goes. Science deals in hypotheses and evidence. And the hypothesis that humanity shares a relatively recent common ancestry with apes is well supported by the evidence, and -- just as importantly -- it EXPLAINS the evidence.

For example, in the fossil record, if you take Sahelanthropus (an ape-like species thought to be close to the divergence point of human and ape evolution) and you take a modern homo sapiens, there are fossils that connect those two species through a series of small morphological changes. Not only does this support the hypothesis that humans COULD have a common ancestry with apes, but the hypothesis actually explains WHY there are a whole series of fossils that appear to be intermediate between those two species.

Creationism does NOT explain why this series of intermediates exists. If a Creator was making each species directly and individually, why would He create a set of species that appear to be intermediates between great apes and humans? And why would He do the same thing between reptiles and birds? Between land mammals and whales? Between reptiles and early mammals? The existence of these intermediate series only makes sense in an evolutionary context.

[Robert Camp]

So, when Bill Rogers said this - "God created a universe governed by
physical laws, and those physical laws allow "such a dense information
system" to arise without further tinkering on God's part" - and you
replied, "That's not an answer,"...you were, what, having a stroke?

You have agreed to the fundamental creative behavior embraced by all
theistic evolutionists (theists who accept evolution). Your ad hoc
assertion that this activity is limited to small variance is
contradicted by observation and well-documented theory.

> This has been observed, but ape to human has never been proven.

You have missed the point here just as wildly as you did in the other
thread. These processes that you agree have been "observed" can be
logically extrapolated, and evidence for those predicted extrapolations
can be sought out and studied.

Consider this example: it takes Pluto over three time the average human
lifespan to orbit the sun. We had no hard data for confirmed multiple
orbits of that planet, yet we were able to make predictions from the
data we did have that were accurate enough to have a probe perform a
very successful flyby. Scientists extrapolated from known data, made
predictions, and those predictions were validated.

Similarly, evidence that confirms our predictions for evolutionary
biology has been found multiple times, both in the fossil record (see
Tiktaalik) as well as the genomic data (comparative phylogenetic analyses).

It's possible, staggeringly unlikely but possible, that you are correct
in your dismissal of evolutionary theory. But so far, you have made no
correct arguments in favor of that position. This condition can be
remedied by actually learning something about the subject.

[Alpha Beta]

Sorry, theistic evolution is nonsense, and so is evolution itself. Life is designed to be adaptable, Darwins finches are examples for it.

[Robert Camp]

You don't really comprehend what you read, do you?

> Life is designed to be adaptable, Darwins finches are examples for
> it.

That is the essence of theistic evolution, something you just called
nonsense.

So I assume you were apologizing for being utterly confused?

[Alpha Beta]

No, that has nothing to do with theistic evolution. If God created nature he surely wanted them to be spread everywhere and be adapted to their surroundings. If you design a perfect robot, what would be its ultimate feature? To be able to adapt. Exactly what God did in nature. And selection has nothing to do with evolution, it was well known by creationists before Darwin, but also it's not a factor that changes a creature into something else.

[Sean Dillon]

Creatures don't change into something else. Each individual's genome is fixed and static. POPULATIONS turn into something else, over extended periods of time. And this change is absolutely driven by the fact that individuals with better-suited features survive better than their worse-suited individuals, generation, after generation, after generation.

[Alpha Beta]

Yes, the bible says all creatures were created after their kind. Biology confirms the bible.
But still evolution is wrong. Like I said, fruit flies and humans are NOT related. Why are all creatures symmetric, have only 1 head, have mostly 2 legs and 2 arms, or just 4 legs, two eyes, two ears on each side of the head, only 1 nose under their eyes and 1 mouth under their nose. This clearly points to an author of the nature.

[Sean Dillon]

You keep saying that, but you haven't presented any compelling evidence for this claim

>Why are all creatures symmetric, have only 1 head, have mostly 2 legs and 2 arms, or just 4 legs, two eyes, two ears on each side of the head, only 1 nose under their eyes and 1 mouth under their nose. This clearly points to an author of the nature.

A) All animals are NOT symmetrical. Take sponges for example. And even a lot of animals that are basically symmetrical have asymmetries. Your heart, for example, is not symmetrical.

B) All organisms are DEFINITELY not symmetrical. Most plants aren't. Most fungus aren't. When you get down to single-celled organisms, most of them don't have a symmetrical internal layout either.

C) All creatures do NOT have all of those features you mentioned. There is a wide variety of features in the animal kingdom.

D) Those creatures that DO share all those traits -- reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, etc. -- share those traits because (you guessed it) they all inherited those traits from their common ancestors!

E) If you pay attention, you'll notice that there is a nested hierarchy here. You'll notice that all humans have a LOT in common. All primates including humans have just a little LESS in common. All mammals still have a lot in common, but not quite as much. Mammals share the body plan you mentioned with the rest of the terrestrial vertebrates. We have less in common with fish, but they still have most of the same features. We share even less with worms, though they still have a top and bottom, front and back, a segmented body plan and bilateral symmetry. And from there, you could move back up the tree, in the direction of the arthropods, including the insects. And you'll find that there, too, there is a nested hierarchy of similarity.

A nested hierarchy (which looks like a branching tree) is the ONLY arrangement of life that would be possible under evolution, and a nested hierarchy is only well-explained BY evolution.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 12:00:42 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.

Selection is by definition non-random; I thought you knew
that.

>To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness.

Then, as with many words, you don't know what "non-random"
means.

> Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition.

Actually, yes, it is.

> So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random? After a number of replies I will reveal where non-random is obtained.
>
>Make no mistake, I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work by authoring this topic.
>
>Ray

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[John Harshman]

Does it? What's a kind? And why are chimp and human genomes 98.7% similar?

> But still evolution is wrong. Like I said, fruit flies and humans are
> NOT related. Why are all creatures symmetric, have only 1 head, have
> mostly 2 legs and 2 arms, or just 4 legs, two eyes, two ears on each
> side of the head, only 1 nose under their eyes and 1 mouth under
> their nose. This clearly points to an author of the nature.

You might as well ask why monkeys habitually fly out of your ass. All
creatures are not symmetric. Very few have 2 legs and 2 arms or just 4
legs. Very few have ears at all, much less on the sides of their heads,
very few have noses. It's true that most, but not all, have mouths, and
a sizeable minority have 2 eyes. Please don't confuse your ignorance
with reality.

[Alpha Beta]

Sorry, but you folks are wrong as usual. Common design implies a common creator, but common ancestry.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 12:54:57 PM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
[snip]

>
> Sorry, but you folks are wrong as usual. Common design implies a common creator, but common ancestry.

Again: big claims with no supporting evidence. Common genetic features may be compatible with either common design or common ancestry.

However, only evolution can adequately explain the NESTED HIERARCHY of common genetic features. A common ancestry DEMANDS a family tree. Common design has no reason for such an arrangement.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bfefaf57-4c04-4f1c...@googlegroups.com...

FYI: Evolution does not depend on how or why life got started. We know wiith
certainty that life appeared on this planet aroun 4 billion years ago.
Evolution has been going on ever since then. All life on the planet ever
since then and alive today is subjected to the same processes.



What argument are you trying to make? FYI: Evolution started (I don't know
why you mention kickstart?) as soon as the first life had emerged on our
planet. I am glad it had the strength to continue uninterrupted ever since
then.

Just let me know if you still are confused. Better still: Read some books,
read many books. Try to fill the void in your brain, there is room there if
you try!

>

[John Harshman]

As usual, you don't respond to what I actually said. That's why some
people think you're a bot. You could certainly be replaced by a bot with
minimal difference.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:08a75f71-8123-4350...@googlegroups.com...
> Evolution is wrong, life is designed to reprogram itself when required.
> See all the variants of Darwins finches, only the beak really adapted.
> Magic or intended? 99.9% of mutations don't add new information, and when
> the information already exists then it's hardly evolution. Genetic
> switches exist which point to a master programmer.
>

Nonsense. There is no master programmer. Read some books, read many books
Get wise, don't remain ignorant for the rest of your life.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bfefaf57-4c04-4f1c...@googlegroups.com...

Nonsense. Everybody takes evolution seriously

[Alpha Beta]

Evolution must explain the first cell or DNA otherwise the theory falls apart.

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:02:47 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta

Apart from the odd grammar - "If God created NATURE he surely wanted
THEM ..." (who are "them?"), it's a good attempt at describing
theistic evolution. The pity is that AlphaBeta knows not of what s/he
speaks.
Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:87b474eb-9720-47c6...@googlegroups.com...

Ape to human? There never was any ape to human. Humans are one of the great
apes and all apes share a common ancestor. apes and share a common
ancestor. But that was not an ape, it was an earlier species that by
evolutionary processes gave life to new species. All us apes are branches on
the same tree.

Read some books and learn what science says before making things up.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:904216bd-7bec-4c4d...@googlegroups.com...

Don't you have any better argument than "evolution is nonsense"? Life is
adaptable, but the appaerance of design is not evidence of design.

The example of Darwins finches (you haven't read that book, have you?) is
what it is, but we have much more and fascinating evidence of evolution than
that..

Not only have I read Darwins Finches, I have the book, I bought the book.
That's what serious people do. That's what we do to learn things because we
want to know.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:be2d4913-c4db-4a90...@googlegroups.com...

Aha, you are discussing creationism? It seems to me you are trying to create
an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.
There is no need to try and propagate creationism here, we already have
Answers in Genesis (AiG) and CMI, I suppose you are well acquainted with
them?

[Rolf]

 

 

 

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5fb863b9-2dfe-458f...@googlegroups.com...

The only argument I consider relevant to that is BS.

 

The first multicelled creatures was not symetric, that was a later development If you really want to know how creatures became symmetric it might be o good idea to read Endless Forms Most Beautiful - The New Science of Evo Devo by Sean B. Carroll.

 

You are guaranteed to learn a lot more interesting things as well.

 

 

We don't care what the Bible says. Are you aware of how little the authors of scriptures knew about the world?

 

You must be very clueless to claim that "Biology confirms the bible."

Biology does nothing like that.

 

 

[Rolf]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:sbOdna7NEun2nSLF...@giganews.com...

There is a common design seen in animals: They are basically a tube with two
openings, one to get nourishment in, and another at the opposite end to get
rid of waste products.

That applies to both evolutionists and creationists as well.

Appendages to gather food, for propulsion and so on, are also provided.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1efd95bc-5bde-4709...@googlegroups.com...

Another exaggeration from our AB creationist.

We are not "wrong as usual." Are you aware how much of the time science and
scientists are right? That's what they usually are. Are you aware of how
successful science actually is, in every field of science? Do you realy
think that paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, actually an
overwhelming majority of scientists regardess of branch are supporting
evolution?

[Alpha Beta]

All nature is based on information. Information always comes from an intelligent mind. If one natural law alone refutes evolution then the debate is over.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 2:29:56 PM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> All nature is based on information. Information always comes from an intelligent mind. If one natural law alone refutes evolution then the debate is over.

"Information always comes from an intelligent mind" is not a natural law. It is not even accurate.

[Alpha Beta]

There are no known exceptions to it.

[Bill]

Rolf wrote:

>
>
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:sbOdna7NEun2nSLF...@giganews.com...
>> On 3/7/17 10:17 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:

>>> Am Dienstag, 7. M�rz 2017 19:09:56 UTC+1 schrieb Sean

>>> Dillon:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 12:04:56 PM UTC-6, Alpha
>>>> Beta wrote:

>>>>> Am Dienstag, 7. M�rz 2017 18:54:56 UTC+1 schrieb

>>>>> Robert Camp:
>>>>>> On 3/7/17 9:32 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:

>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 7. M�rz 2017 18:24:56 UTC+1 schrieb

>>>>>>> Robert Camp:
>>>>>>>> On 3/7/17 8:46 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 7. M�rz 2017 17:39:57 UTC+1 schrieb

>>>>>>>>> Robert Camp:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/7/17 8:18 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 7. M�rz 2017 16:29:56 UTC+1 schrieb

Evolution is a mindless process with no direction and no
intent so there is never a 'reason' for anything. Change
just happens. This is fundamental requirement for the
theory. This must mean that "Appendages to gather food, for
propulsion and so on" violates that logic. Appendages just
happen and whatever functionality the organism derives from
them is simple accident.

In order for any biological phenomenon to achieve some end,
it must first know what is needed (a goal) and how to change
the organism to attain the goal. This requires intent and
that requires design which requires intelligence. Those
arguing that this or that modification is 'for" something or
serves some purpose, misunderstand the logic implied by the
TOE.

Bill

[John Harshman]

That isn't animals. It's bilaterians. And that term "design" is loaded.

> That applies to both evolutionists and creationists as well.
>
> Appendages to gather food, for propulsion and so on, are also provided.

"Provided": another loaded term. Anyway, some have appendages, others don't.

[John Harshman]

This would be true if those appendages had arisen by a single
macromutation. But of course that isn't how it works.

> In order for any biological phenomenon to achieve some end,
> it must first know what is needed (a goal) and how to change
> the organism to attain the goal. This requires intent and
> that requires design which requires intelligence. Those
> arguing that this or that modification is 'for" something or
> serves some purpose, misunderstand the logic implied by the
> TOE.

No, you merely misunderstand the language. In biology, "for" merely
refers to function, not purpose. There's a difference.

[John Harshman]

If it wasn't an ape, what would you call it?

[Bill]

John Harshman wrote:

...

>>>
>>> Appendages to gather food, for propulsion and so on, are
>>> also provided.
>>
>> Evolution is a mindless process with no direction and no
>> intent so there is never a 'reason' for anything. Change
>> just happens. This is fundamental requirement for the
>> theory. This must mean that "Appendages to gather food,
>> for propulsion and so on" violates that logic. Appendages
>> just happen and whatever functionality the organism
>> derives from them is simple accident.
>
> This would be true if those appendages had arisen by a
> single macromutation. But of course that isn't how it
> works.
>
>> In order for any biological phenomenon to achieve some
>> end, it must first know what is needed (a goal) and how
>> to change the organism to attain the goal. This requires
>> intent and that requires design which requires
>> intelligence. Those arguing that this or that
>> modification is 'for" something or serves some purpose,
>> misunderstand the logic implied by the TOE.
>
> No, you merely misunderstand the language. In biology,
> "for" merely refers to function, not purpose. There's a
> difference.

A mutation is a randomly caused change in the gamete of an
organism. It is independent of its environment, completely
ignorant of and indifferent to the needs of the larger
organism. While long claws and sharp teeth might be handy
for an organism, there is no way to communicate this to the
gamete. The whole process, as explained, makes no sense and
defies its own logic.

Bill

[John Harshman]

Once again, you assume that these features must arise all at once by
macromutation. That isn't how it works. Long claws and sharp teeth arise
from small changes in pre-existing claws and teeth (and other things
before that). Natural selection over long periods molds complex
features, not foresight and planning.

You grossly misunderstand evolutionary theory. You should probably know
what it says before rejecting it.

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:18:41 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta

<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Am Dienstag, 7. März 2017 16:29:56 UTC+1 schrieb jillery:
>> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 06:02:18 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
>> <dark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Look at the countless variants of Darwins finches, only the beak adapted,
>>
>>
>> Actually, the beaks are only the most obvious changes. This isn't
>> surprising, considering their shape determines how successfully birds
>> can eat the available food.
>>
>>
>> >this rather supports creation and not evolution.
>>
>>
>> Really? So why can't your Creator get the beak shape right the first
>> time?
>>
>>
>> >With evolution I mean molecule or fish or ape to humans.
>>
>>
>> What's the point of you defining evolution in a way that you say can't
>> happen?
>

>Life is designed to reprogram itself when required.

If so, then life would behave exactly as if evolution was correct, and
so no need for your constantly tinkering Creator.

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:17:22 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But still evolution is wrong. Like I said, fruit flies and humans are NOT related.

You can parrot your spam all you want, it doesn't make it true.

[jillery]

Why? That's like saying Dark Matter has to explain global warming

otherwise the theory falls apart.

[jillery]

You were doing so well, right up until your last sentence. What you
continue to ignore is that your failure to understand reality reflects
badly on you, not on reality.

[jillery]

You're right, except for all the exceptions you handwave away.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:49:57 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 3/6/17 12:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the
> > claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random
> > process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other
> > Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by
> > definition, non-random.
>
> Please stop asking where people "obtain the idea." People read, go to
> classes, educate themselves. Try it.

So Robert points to other human beings, whether authors or teachers. Again, where did these persons obtain the idea of non-random selection/evolution?

Perhaps I didn't make my self clear: I'm asking where did scientists obtain the idea?

>
> > To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or
> > natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness.
>
> *Every* definition of evolution or natural selection you've seen
> includes the concept of non-randomness.

It's not seen in the allele frequency definition neither is it seen in any **definition** of natural selection----in explanations yes, but not in definitions. These are facts. But again, I'm asking where scientists obtained the idea? They didn't get it from Darwin and he was co-founder. So non-random is a subjective claim.

>
> > Do I
> > know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes,
> > I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party,
> > preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of
> > non-random?
>
> Well, I suppose the idea of non-random is "obtained" by acculturation.
> One is born, exposed to and taught language (in my case, English), and
> learns to use the concepts and protocols inherent in that process.
> "Non-random" is essentially necessarily "obtained" by my cerebral cortex
> in the process of becoming familiar with the idea of "random."
>
> Of course, if, in your poorly-written and muddled style of
> communication, you are asking where the idea of non-random enters the
> meaning of *natural selection*, the answer is simpler, though related.
> Just consult a dictionary, it's in the word (and concept of) "selection."

The above equates to a long-winded admission, that in Robert's understanding of evolution, "selection" means "non-random." As a matter of fact the concept of non-random is NOT found in ANY **definition** of natural selection. So Robert simply restates the question as the answer. The same is a highly subjective and nonsensical claim: selection means non-random. In reality, death or elimination does not address action.

>
> By continuing down the path of
> denying-that-words-mean-what-everyone-else-knows-they-mean, you further
> indict your mental condition.
>
> <snip nonsense>

I'm challenging a sacred claim: the alleged non-randomness of natural selection. When claims are being challenged one cannot invoke "everyone knows" as the answer because that's my ultimate point: everyone is wrong, everyone has accepted a subjective claim.

Where did scientists obtain the idea of non-random selection? Since it wasn't obtained from the founder, it's an add-on claim also known as a subjective claim.

I know the answer. I'm also exposing the fact that any given Evolutionist doesn't know, especially Robert Camp. His answers are comical, subjective, and epitomizing ignorance.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:

> On 3/6/2017 3:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
> >

> > To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness. Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random? After a number of replies I will reveal where non-random is obtained.
> >
> > Make no mistake, I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work by authoring this topic.
>
> I developed my understanding of random and
> non-random from statistic and math courses. The
> problem I see is that you keep trying to equate
> random with non-design and non-random with design.
> But these terms refer to different ideas and have
> different meanings.
>
> It is comparable to saying that red = large and
> small = blue. Then claiming that it is impossible
> for there to be a large blue car or a small red
> car. Of course that would be an idiotic
> statement. But you insist on using random = not
> designed and non-random = designed. But only an
> insane individual would bother to argue this with
> you as you make up your own definitions and have a
> poor understanding of what many words mean.
>
> Where did you get the idea that non-random =
> design and random = not designed?

From mutation AND from the fact that selection is not designed. If mutation is random and not designed then one cannot say selection is not designed but non-random. We have a contradiction and an incongruity: In the former not designed = random, but in the latter not designed = non-random.

>
> Is a fair roulette wheel designed? Does it
> produce random or non-random results?
>
>
>
> --
> Richard McBane

Lottery numbers are designed to be random draws as well. BUT natural selection is not designed; it is said to be a naturally occurring phenomenon that exhibits no signs of guidedness, directedness, or supervision, but the same behaves antonymicly or non-randomly. Non-randomness is NOT an expectation of unguidedness, undirectedness, or lack of supervision.

I'm asking where did scientists obtain the idea of a non-random selection process?

I know for a fact that it wasn't obtained from Darwin. All one has to do is produce a quotation from the Origin and I'm refuted.

Scientists obtained the idea of natural selection from Darwin (and Wallace). The fact that the theory is still called "natural selection" MEANS Darwin's conception remains fundamentally valid. So the claim of non-random is subjective, an add-on, and thus invalid. Again, I know where scientists obtained the add-on. And I know why they added the claim.

As I said in the OP: By authoring this topic I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:24:56 AM UTC-8, John Bode wrote:

> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:04:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of
> > fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I
> > asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said
> > natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
> >
> > To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural
> > selection that included the concept of non-randomness.
>

> You haven't looked very hard, then.
>
> > We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully
> > 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they
> > come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step
> > transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities
> > sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive
> > change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, *relative
> > to its predecessor*, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence
> > of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you
> > consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original
> > starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom
> > survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this
> > *cumulative selection* as a fundamentally nonrandom process.
>
> Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker", Chapter 3. A PDF is available at
>
> http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf
>
> Variation is random - the environment in which reproduction occurs (at
> the molecular level, at least) is subject to random noise, and this noise
> can affect assembly of base pairs as DNA is being replicated.
>
> Selection is *not* random - like a sieve only lets through particles smaller
> than a given size, selection only allows certain variants to out-reproduce
> their peers. Not all variants are viable; among viable variants, the
> environment acts as a sieve, only letting through the more successful
> variants.
>
> Lather, rinse repeat.

Your post I will answer next, hopefully tomorrow.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:29:56 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:04:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
> >

> > To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness. Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random? After a number of replies I will reveal where non-random is obtained.
> >
> > Make no mistake, I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work by authoring this topic.
> >

> > Ray
>
> Let's take you through this again, using a herd of gazelle as our example.
>
> In any given population, there is going to be a variety of breeding success. Some members will breed extensively, some with breed a little, and some won't get to breed at all. The result of this is that, in the next generation, the offspring of the highly successful breeders will be highly represented, the mediocre breeders will be somewhat represented, and the non-breeders... well, they won't be represented at all. That's natural selection.
>
> We also know that, within a population, individuals will have a variety of qualities. Some faster, some slower, some smarter, some dumber, etc. etc. Since we're dealing with gazelle here, let's focus in on speed.
>
> If natural selection were random, every gazelle would have the same odds of being a successful breeder. Success would be randomly distributed. Regardless of how fast or slow a gazelle is, it would have an equal shot at being highly represented in the next generation.
>
> But that isn't what we observe. What we observe is that, as a general rule, faster gazelle tend to out-survive slower gazelle, because slower gazelle get caught and eaten by lions. As such, the faster gazelles will have greater breeding success, and their offspring be more highly represented in future generations. There is a NON-RANDOM RELATIONSHIP between a gazelle's speed and its odds of being a successful breeder. Faster gazelles tend to survive and breed, slower gazelles tend to get eaten.
>
> That is natural selection as we see it in the world, and its impact on the population over time is non-random. To whit: if a population is under selective pressure, natural selection will always push a population, generation after generation, in the direction of whatever qualities promote successful breeding.
>
> I have a feeling that this whole thing may hinge on the meaning you're attributing to the word random. So let me be clear, the applicable definition of "random" here is the one that is applicable to statistics: "being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence." (m-w.com) In this context, the word has nothing to do specifically with lacking an intent or plan, and has everything to do with a lack of a pattern. Random, in this context, just means that any outcome is equally likely.
>
> Natural selection is non-random, because the outcomes of natural selection are not all equally likely. They form a pattern.
>

I'm skipping your contribution for the moment, will get back to your claims.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:44:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:

[snip]

> >
> > Where did you get the idea that non-random =
> > design and random = not designed?
>
> From mutation AND from the fact that selection is not designed. If mutation is random and not designed then one cannot say selection is not designed but non-random. We have a contradiction and an incongruity: In the former not designed = random, but in the latter not designed = non-random.

Some non-designed things are random. Some non-designed things are non-random. There is no necessary relationship between design and randomness. Mutation is non-designed and random, selection is non-designed and NON-random. There is no contradiction or incongruity.

> Lottery numbers are designed to be random draws as well. BUT natural selection is not designed; it is said to be a naturally occurring phenomenon that exhibits no signs of guidedness, directedness, or supervision, but the same behaves antonymicly or non-randomly. Non-randomness is NOT an expectation of unguidedness, undirectedness, or lack of supervision.

Non-randomness is not NOT an expectation of unguidedness, undirectedness, or lack of supervision. Again, there is no necessary relationship between randomnes and design.

> I'm asking where did scientists obtain the idea of a non-random selection process?

By the fact that the results of the selection are NON-RANDOM. "Everybody has an equal chance of surviving and breeding" would be random. "The individuals best suited to their environment have a higher chance of surviving and breeding" is non-random.

> I know for a fact that it wasn't obtained from Darwin. All one has to do is produce a quotation from the Origin and I'm refuted.

Chapter 4, paragraph 1:

"can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. "

If Natural Selection preserves favourable variations and rejects injurous variations, that is a NON-RANDOM OUTCOME.

> Scientists obtained the idea of natural selection from Darwin (and Wallace). The fact that the theory is still called "natural selection" MEANS Darwin's conception remains fundamentally valid. So the claim of non-random is subjective, an add-on, and thus invalid. Again, I know where scientists obtained the add-on. And I know why they added the claim.

It isn't an add-on. Natural selection was never random, and to the best of my knowledge, Darwin never suggested that it was.

> As I said in the OP: By authoring this topic I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work.
>
> Ray

You're batting zero so far. The crux of your argument rests on your inaccurate assertion (already refuted repeatedly) that a thing that is unguided/undirected/undesigned is necessarily random. This being false, your entire argument falls apart.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:
>> On 3/6/2017 3:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
>>>
>>> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness. Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random? After a number of replies I will reveal where non-random is obtained.
>>>
>>> Make no mistake, I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work by authoring this topic.
>>
>> I developed my understanding of random and
>> non-random from statistic and math courses. The
>> problem I see is that you keep trying to equate
>> random with non-design and non-random with design.
>> But these terms refer to different ideas and have
>> different meanings.
>>
>> It is comparable to saying that red = large and
>> small = blue. Then claiming that it is impossible
>> for there to be a large blue car or a small red
>> car. Of course that would be an idiotic
>> statement. But you insist on using random = not
>> designed and non-random = designed. But only an
>> insane individual would bother to argue this with
>> you as you make up your own definitions and have a
>> poor understanding of what many words mean.
>>
>> Where did you get the idea that non-random =
>> design and random = not designed?
>
> From mutation AND from the fact that selection is not designed. If mutation is random and not designed then one cannot say selection is not designed but non-random. We have a contradiction and an incongruity: In the former not designed = random, but in the latter not designed = non-random.

So? This is neither a contradiction nor an incongruity. It simple means
that the property pairs design/nondesigned and random/nonrandom are
independent of each other, giving you four possible combinations.

You can have therefore processes that are designed and non-random,
designed and random, non-designed and non-random and non-designed and
random.

Not different from any other property pair such as tall/small and
fast/slow, which also gives you four combinations. To say that giant
tortoises are tall and slow, while seahorses are small and slow, and
Mexican bats are small and fast while cheetahs are large and fast is
neither in consistency nor an incongruity either, just a fact about nature

>
>>
>> Is a fair roulette wheel designed? Does it
>> produce random or non-random results?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard McBane
>
> Lottery numbers are designed to be random draws as well. BUT natural selection is not designed; it is said to be a naturally occurring phenomenon that exhibits no signs of guidedness, directedness, or supervision, but the same behaves antonymicly or non-randomly.

So" This simply means that some random processes are designed to be
random, others are not designed and random (it comes so to speak
naturally to them). Just as we have some processes that are not designed
and not random (everything governed by a law of nature), and some are
designed to be non-random.

>Non-randomness is NOT an expectation of unguidedness, undirectedness, or lack of supervision.
>
> I'm asking where did scientists obtain the idea of a non-random selection process?
>
> I know for a fact that it wasn't obtained from Darwin. All one has to do is produce a quotation from the Origin and I'm refuted.

I gave you one, you did not reply

>
> Scientists obtained the idea of natural selection from Darwin (and Wallace). The fact that the theory is still called "natural selection" MEANS Darwin's conception remains fundamentally valid. So the claim of non-random is subjective, an add-on, and thus invalid.

This is both factually wrong and a non-sequitur. First NS is non-random
the way Darwin described it, I gave you one quote before.

Secondly, you still confuse science with religion - science does not
have holy books that must not be changed. Scientific theories evolve
over time as we find out new things. So even if Darwin had thought that
NS were random, this would simply mean we found out that he was wrong
about that specific property of NS and modified the theory in the light
of the new insight.

What makes it objective is, well, the object - nature. It alone decides
if a change or expansion of a theory is valid or invalid. Discovering
new things about an object does not mean we have a new object, just
better understanding of its properties. We stil call the sun the sun,
even though we now know it has properties the people who first coined
the term did not know of

[Burkhard]

Bill wrote:
> Rolf wrote:
>
<snip>

Pretty bad non sequitur. Lots of things happen without intent, yet we
are able to discern the reason why they happen.

The reason that objects fall down is gravity. One type of reasons that
explain why things happen are plans and intents by agents, but not all
reasons are plans and intentions by agents

Change
> just happens. This is fundamental requirement for the
> theory. This must mean that "Appendages to gather food, for
> propulsion and so on" violates that logic. Appendages just
> happen and whatever functionality the organism derives from
> them is simple accident.

First, no appendages don't just happen. Rather, they are the result of
multiple, small step modifications.

Secondly, that it is to a degree by accident that the mutations that
lead to these appendages does not imply that they have no functionality,
or that this functionality can't be given as a reason why they are there.

If someone accidentally drops money and you find it, this money has the
same functionality for you just as if it was gifted to you. And in both
case, we can answer the question: "why were you able to buy a car" with:
because you acquired money.

>
> In order for any biological phenomenon to achieve some end,
> it must first know what is needed (a goal) and how to change
> the organism to attain the goal.

Nope, see above. To be able to achieve an end does not imply to have to
plan to achieve this end. Money that was accidentally found fulfils the
function of buying things just as much as money that you acquired after
a detailed plan to rob a bank.

This requires intent and
> that requires design which requires intelligence. Those
> arguing that this or that modification is 'for" something or
> serves some purpose, misunderstand the logic implied by the
> TOE.

No you just misunderstand how the English word "function" works.



>
> Bill
>
>

[Robert Camp]

On 3/7/17 5:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:49:57 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 3/6/17 12:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

>>> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or
>>> natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness.
>>
>> *Every* definition of evolution or natural selection you've seen
>> includes the concept of non-randomness.
>
> It's not seen in the allele frequency definition

Yes, it is. When that definition mentions change in allele frequency it
is implicitly referring to the operation of non-random processes.

> neither is it seen
> in any **definition** of natural selection

It is seen in every definition of natural selection that includes the
word *selection*.

> ----in explanations yes,
> but not in definitions. These are facts. But again, I'm asking where
> scientists obtained the idea? They didn't get it from Darwin and he
> was co-founder.

Read the entire title of the Origin. It's right there.

Your tiresome nonsense is in no way redeemed by the fact that Darwin
might not have used the term "non-random" (in fact I have no idea
whether he did or did not, but it matter not in the least).

> So non-random is a subjective claim.

Closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't change
reality.

>>> Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of
>>> non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any
>>> interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you
>>> obtain the idea of non-random?
>>
>> Well, I suppose the idea of non-random is "obtained" by
>> acculturation. One is born, exposed to and taught language (in my
>> case, English), and learns to use the concepts and protocols
>> inherent in that process. "Non-random" is essentially necessarily
>> "obtained" by my cerebral cortex in the process of becoming
>> familiar with the idea of "random."
>>
>> Of course, if, in your poorly-written and muddled style of
>> communication, you are asking where the idea of non-random enters
>> the meaning of *natural selection*, the answer is simpler, though
>> related. Just consult a dictionary, it's in the word (and concept
>> of) "selection."
>
> The above equates to a long-winded admission, that in Robert's
> understanding of evolution, "selection" means "non-random." As a
> matter of fact the concept of non-random is NOT found in ANY
> **definition** of natural selection.

The concept is found in *every* definition of natural selection. The
term itself (non-random) may not be found there, but that is because not
every word in a definition comes with its own definition - that would
turn dictionaries into endlessly recursive and ridiculous tomes.

And no one who defines a word wastes time worrying about the kind of
childish misunderstanding of language and logic that fools who are
either over-literal or severely confused might invoke.

In other words, I'm done. I can only say the same thing so many times,
and in so many different ways, before I have to just accept that you are
beyond comprehension.

Now go ahead and accuse me of running away, and toddle off to your
padded room.


<snip lunacy>

[RMcBane]

On 3/7/2017 9:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:
>> On 3/6/2017 3:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
>>>
>>> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness. Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random? After a number of replies I will reveal where non-random is obtained.
>>>
>>> Make no mistake, I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work by authoring this topic.
>>
>> I developed my understanding of random and
>> non-random from statistic and math courses. The
>> problem I see is that you keep trying to equate
>> random with non-design and non-random with design.
>> But these terms refer to different ideas and have
>> different meanings.
>>
>> It is comparable to saying that red = large and
>> small = blue. Then claiming that it is impossible
>> for there to be a large blue car or a small red
>> car. Of course that would be an idiotic
>> statement. But you insist on using random = not
>> designed and non-random = designed. But only an
>> insane individual would bother to argue this with
>> you as you make up your own definitions and have a
>> poor understanding of what many words mean.
>>
>> Where did you get the idea that non-random =
>> design and random = not designed?
>
> From mutation AND from the fact that selection is not designed. If mutation is random and not designed then one cannot say selection is not designed but non-random. We have a contradiction and an incongruity: In the former not designed = random, but in the latter not designed = non-random.

Whether or not something is designed has no
relationship to whether or not it random. The two
properties are independent of each other. Again
it gets back to trying to claim that red = large
and small = blue. Color and size are independent
of each other and knowing the value of one
property gives you no knowledge of the value of
the second property.

>> Is a fair roulette wheel designed? Does it
>> produce random or non-random results?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard McBane
>
> Lottery numbers are designed to be random draws as well. BUT natural selection is not designed; it is said to be a naturally occurring phenomenon that exhibits no signs of guidedness, directedness, or supervision, but the same behaves antonymicly or non-randomly. Non-randomness is NOT an expectation of unguidedness, undirectedness, or lack of supervision.
>
> I'm asking where did scientists obtain the idea of a non-random selection process?

Why does it matter at this point where they got
the idea? A better question is where did you get
the idea of a random selection process? Can you
show where Darwin claimed that selection was random?

> I know for a fact that it wasn't obtained from Darwin. All one has to do is produce a quotation from the Origin and I'm refuted.

You could refute it yourself by showing a
quotation from the Origin where Darwin claimed
that selection is a random process.

> Scientists obtained the idea of natural selection from Darwin (and Wallace). The fact that the theory is still called "natural selection" MEANS Darwin's conception remains fundamentally valid. So the claim of non-random is subjective, an add-on, and thus invalid. Again, I know where scientists obtained the add-on. And I know why they added the claim.

Show where Darwin ever claimed selection is random
and you might win a point. Until you do that
there is little point to the discussion.

> As I said in the OP: By authoring this topic I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work.

You are just trying to stroke your ego. I predict
that you will never publish your evolution
refutation work.


--
Richard McBane

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:39:56 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:44:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:
> [snip]
> > >
> > > Where did you get the idea that non-random =
> > > design and random = not designed?
> >
> > From mutation AND from the fact that selection is not designed. If mutation is random and not designed then one cannot say selection is not designed but non-random. We have a contradiction and an incongruity: In the former not designed = random, but in the latter not designed = non-random.
>
>
> Some non-designed things are random. Some non-designed things are non-random. There is no necessary relationship between design and randomness. Mutation is non-designed and random, selection is non-designed and NON-random. There is no contradiction or incongruity.
>

Asserted without argument or reasoning. Sean simply restated the claims that are under challenge.

The original question was how does random = non-designed and non-random = designed? I've argued and reasoned that if mutation is non-designed and random then the claim of fact provides the basis to say the opposite: non-random = designed. After all, when critics argue random action could not have produced organized results, Evolutionists cry error and remind that selection is non-random. So the action of mutation is used to establish that random = non-designed; thus non-random must = designed. Since non-random is obtained from effects, mainly organization, non-random exists in contradiction of non-designed, undirectedness, and unguidedness.

Moreover, I've also argued that organization isn't an expectation of something said to be undirected. Undirectedness or unguidedness are concepts that correspond with disorganization. So the results of organization contradict the actions of the cause: unguidedness. If organization is used to infer or conclude for non-randomness, and it is, then nothing is being said about natural selection except restating the illogical claim that unguidedness produces organization.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Ray:

Elsewhere I have presented you an example of a phenomenon that is unguided yet non-random: if you hold a ball out in front of you and let go, the ball's movement, while unguided, undirected and undersigned, is also highly non-random. To whit, it will move toward the ground.

You have also been presented with the example of a roulette wheel, which, though designed, yields its results at random.

These two examples, of the many that could be presented, show clearly that randomness and guidedness/directedness/design are independent variables. So in stating that unguidedness "equals" randomness, or that design "equals" non-randomness, you are fundamentally misrepresenting the nature of the situation.

Design can result in randomness, or not.
Non-design can result in randomness, or not.

In a system that is random, all outcomes are equally likely. In a system that is non-random, one or more outcomes are likelier than others.

In Natural Selection, some outcomes (the fittest individuals surviving and breeding) are likelier than others (the least fit surviving and breeding). As such, Natural Selection is manifestly non-random.

And because Natural Selection does not require any outside guidance to achieve this result, it is manifestly a unguided/undirected/nondesigned process.

Therefore, Natural Selection is manifestly a non-random, unguided process. We have established, above, that such a think is in no way contradictory, since guidedness and randomness are independent variables, as demonstrated by example.

[Sean Dillon]

Please excuse my spelling errors, I am typing on a phone.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:39:56 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:44:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Where did you get the idea that non-random =
>>>> design and random = not designed?
>>>
>>> From mutation AND from the fact that selection is not designed. If mutation is random and not designed then one cannot say selection is not designed but non-random. We have a contradiction and an incongruity: In the former not designed = random, but in the latter not designed = non-random.
>>
>>
>> Some non-designed things are random. Some non-designed things are non-random. There is no necessary relationship between design and randomness. Mutation is non-designed and random, selection is non-designed and NON-random. There is no contradiction or incongruity.
>>
>
> Asserted without argument or reasoning.

Well, no. The argument is that your use of the "=" is false. And as you
never gave a reason why it would be true (you only ever gave examples of
things that happen to be both, which is for obvious reasons
insufficient) there is not a lot to argue against The counterexamples he
gave, such as the lottery, falsify it, which is all that's needed

Sean simply restated the claims that are under challenge.
>
> The original question was how does random = non-designed and non-random = designed? I've argued and reasoned that if mutation is non-designed and random then the claim of fact provides the basis to say the opposite: non-random = designed.

Only it doesn't. That would be like arguing that because the Eiffel
Tower is a building and not in Britain, everything that is not a
building must be in Britain. Easily falsified by observing the white
cliffs of Dover.

Generally, you simply can't infer from observing that there is an x that
is A and -B that therefore, all y's that are B are -A

>After all, when critics argue random action could not have produced organized results, Evolutionists cry error and remind that selection is non-random. So the action of mutation is used to establish that random = non-designed; thus non-random must = designed.

Again the same non-sequitur, as the above counter example shows.

> Since non-random is obtained from effects, mainly organization,

No, it is obtained by being able to predict, and thus also explain, why
a specific trait was selected. That is we can identify a specific causal
mechanism that systematically (and hence not randomly)results in some
traits being preserved.

> non-random exists in contradiction of non-designed, undirectedness, and unguidedness.
>
> Moreover, I've also argued that organization isn't an expectation of something said to be undirected.

Not so much "argued" as "asserted".

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:54:51 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:49:57 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 3/6/17 12:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the
>> > claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random
>> > process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other
>> > Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by
>> > definition, non-random.
>>
>> Please stop asking where people "obtain the idea." People read, go to
>> classes, educate themselves. Try it.
>
>So Robert points to other human beings, whether authors or teachers. Again, where did these persons obtain the idea of non-random selection/evolution?
>
>Perhaps I didn't make my self clear: I'm asking where did scientists obtain the idea?

The same place as scientists obtain *all* their information -
observation and experimentation.


[...]

--
Martin Harran aka AAQ

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/7/17 10:17 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>

> Yes, the bible says all creatures were created after their kind.
> Biology confirms the bible.

Where does the Bible say that a "kind" cannot change into a different kind?

If there is one thing that creationists understand less than evolution,
it is the Bible.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[val...@gmail.com]

Will be interesting to see.

I think natural selection has been adequately explained, and -- like gravity -- is clearly non-random, even if that term isn't used to describe it.

Heck, one doesn't even refer to gravity as "non-random", but that's because
its obvious on the face of it that it isn't random. It's common knowledge.

--
-v

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc90bbf3-4b64-4bd4...@googlegroups.com...

Waiting for Ray to respond.

Rolf

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9c63f1b2-71ab-4fc5...@googlegroups.com...

> Please excuse my spelling errors, I am typing on a phone.
>

You should see all my errors, (most of the time I correct them) and I am
typing on a keyboard.
But I never learned the touch method, and I have a left little finger that
is bent.
(and the middle finger as well).. Dupuytren's contracture.

[Rolf]

<val...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4845a8a4-73e5-42a0...@googlegroups.com...

I think maybe Ray is in a tight spot here
I think it is paramount to his 'understanding of natural selection that it
must to be random.
His main argument against evolution is at stake.
I don't see how he can allow himself to accept being corrected on that.

If Jesus himself approached him, showing his credentials and telling him
that science is right,
Ray would drop dead like we find in Acts 5:5 that .Ananias hearing these
words fell down, and gave up the ghost:
and at 5:10 that . she (his wife) fell she down straightway at his feet,
and yielded up the ghost:

(Facts, miracles, or just more Biblical nonsense?)

> --
> -v
>

[Ray Martinez]

I will answer right after this one.

>
> I think natural selection has been adequately explained, and -- like gravity -- is clearly non-random, even if that term isn't used to describe it.
>

I never said natural selection NOT adequately explained. What I've said is that nonrandom is NOT part of any **definition** of the concept and I've said nonrandom is a subjective add on----Darwin the founder never described his discovery as exhibiting nonrandom action (or any synonym).

> Heck, one doesn't even refer to gravity as "non-random", but that's because
> its obvious on the face of it that it isn't random. It's common knowledge.
>
> --
> -v

The nonrandom action of natural selection is found in relevant literature abundantly----yes, but that's what I'm challenging. Said claim is a subjective add-on. This is precisely WHY I have asked repeatedly WHERE did scientists obtain the idea of a nonrandom selection process? Most replies have said "selection" means nonrandom----it does not, and that's NOT a matter of opinion. Selection corresponds to death or elimination, not the action of the alleged phenomenon.

Since no one has been able to produce a Darwin quotation that describes the action as nonrandom, or any synonym, by the rules of debate the claim of nonrandom selection is a subjective add on, and that's a fact.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On the Origin of Species, Chapter 4, paragraph 1:
"...can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection"

A random process is one in which all outcomes are equally likely
A non-random process is one in which one or more outcomes is more likely than others.

What Darwin describes here, in defining Natural Selection, is a process in which some outcomes (the survival and procreation of advantaged individuals) is more likely than other outcomes (the survival and procreation of individuals with injurous variations).

In other words, Charles Darwin is describing Natural Selection as a non-random process, though not in so many words.

Natural selection being non-random has been a part of evolutionary theory from its inception, even if that specific word wasn't used to describe it.

[Burkhard]

No, it is the observation how NS works.

> This is precisely WHY I have asked repeatedly WHERE did scientists obtain the idea of a nonrandom selection process? Most replies have said "selection" means nonrandom

No, most replies have said that the non-randomness of selection what we
observe.

----it does not, and that's NOT a matter of opinion. Selection
corresponds to death or elimination, not the action of the alleged
phenomenon.
>
> Since no one has been able to produce a Darwin quotation that describes the action as nonrandom,

well yes, I did, you just never responded.

[Burkhard]

Minor nitpit, this is not totally correct - you can have e.g. a random
selection of marbles from a population where 90% of the marbles are
black and 10% white, which of course will not give you a 50/50
probability that a selected marble is white. But what you mean is spot on

[Sean Dillon]

Fair clarification.

Depends on your angle of view. The chances of drawing any particular marble are equal. A particular marble doesn't have a greater chance of being drawn, by merit of its blackness. So the process is random.

As I know YOU are aware, the above is not reflective of what we see in natural selection. Some "marbles"* do indeed have a better chance of "being drawn"** by merit of their "color."***

*individuals
**surviving and breeding
***advantagous variations

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:24:56 AM UTC-8, John Bode wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:04:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of
> > fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I
> > asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said
> > natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
> >
> > To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural
> > selection that included the concept of non-randomness.
>
> You haven't looked very hard, then.

Note I said **definition,** not explanation. I agree that very many explanations of selection as nonrandom exist.

>
> > We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully
> > 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they
> > come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step
> > transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities
> > sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive
> > change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, *relative
> > to its predecessor*, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence
> > of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you
> > consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original
> > starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom
> > survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this
> > *cumulative selection* as a fundamentally nonrandom process.
>
> Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker", Chapter 3. A PDF is available at
>
> http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

Very famous and well-known passage you have produced. A close read reveals that Dawkins says, concerning living things "....too improbable....to have come into existence by chance." THEN he conveys "Darwin's answer." Note the fact that Dawkins is invoking Darwin the founder of natural selection. Darwin died in 1883 and Dawkins published his book in 1986. So where did anyone obtain the idea that Darwin had become irrelevant? Dawkins, of course, is writing as a Darwinist. That said, Dawkins then conveys Darwin's answer as "gradual, step-by-step transformations," followed by these statements "....to have come into existence by chance," and "to have arisen by chance." Both statements say it could have happened by chance; if you don't believe me then just read them in context. Then the very next thing Dawkins says, "But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process...."

Let's stop right there.

In summary: Dawkins tells us he is relating Darwin's answer as to how species (units of organized complexity) come to exist. He then says the object of explanation comes about via a gradual step-by-step process, which he then affirms TWICE is by chance. THEN he says, not quoting Darwin or speaking for him, the entire cumulative process "constitutes anything but a chance process." So here we have a very clear admission that Dawkins, not Darwin, is adding on the nonrandom claim. Hold on. Dawkins is saying: the FACT that each step is gradual AND slight the same gives him the right to describe the cumulative process, after the fact, as nonrandom or nonrandom survival.

Fact: The Dawkins quotation is an explanation of natural selection. He says, early on in his book, just that.

Fact: He is careful to convey "Darwin's answer" is step-wise chance. Two times he says each step is by chance.

Fact: He is careful to describe the cumulative theory as nonrandom----**which is conveyed as his descriptive conclusion.**

Fact: We have a clear admission, by implication, that Darwin did NOT convey a nonrandom selection process; rather, the same is a conclusion reached by Dawkins. If Darwin had said nonrandom or any synonym then Dawkins would have surely quoted Darwin or said Darwin said.

>
> Variation is random - the environment in which reproduction occurs (at
> the molecular level, at least) is subject to random noise, and this noise
> can affect assembly of base pairs as DNA is being replicated.
>
> Selection is *not* random - like a sieve only lets through particles smaller
> than a given size, selection only allows certain variants to out-reproduce
> their peers. Not all variants are viable; among viable variants, the
> environment acts as a sieve, only letting through the more successful
> variants.
>
> Lather, rinse repeat.

Note the fact that Dawkins accounts for the concept of sieve, but says the same could NOT have produced organized complexity----the degree found in living things.

http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

"Sieving of this order of simplicity is not, on its own, enough to
account for the massive amounts of nonrandom order that we see in
living things. Nowhere near enough. Remember the analogy of the
combination lock. The kind of non-randomness that can be generated
by simple sieving is roughly equivalent to opening a combination lock
with only one dial: it is easy to open it by sheer luck. The kind of nonrandomness that we see in living systems, on the other hand, is
equivalent to a gigantic combination lock with an almost uncountable
number of dials. To generate a biological molecule like haemoglobin,
the red pigment in blood, by simple sieving would be equivalent to
taking all the amino-acid building blocks of haemoglobin, jumbling
them up at random, and hoping that the haemoglobin molecule would
reconstitute itself by sheer luck. The amount of luck that would be
required for this feat is unthinkable, and has been used as a telling
mind-boggier by Isaac Asimov and others....Simple sieving, on its own, is obviously nowhere near capable of generating the amount of order in a living thing. Sieving is an essential ingredient in the generation of living order, but it is very far from being the whole story" (Dawkins pgs 44, 45).

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

You are badly misreading Dawkins here. Each "step"/"transformation" DOES arise by chance/at random. After all, that step/transformation is a mutation... the "random variation" half of the process. However it is not RETAINED by chance. It is retained by natural selection, which is NON-random. And so the accummulation OF such changes is not a matter of chance, but rather the effect of natural selection retaining (randomly occuring) mutations (aka steps/transformations) as they arise, and each new variation happening in the context of all previously retained variation.

[snip]

[RMcBane]

On 3/9/2017 4:27 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:24:56 AM UTC-8, John Bode wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:04:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of
>>> fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I
>>> asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said
>>> natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
>>>
>>> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural
>>> selection that included the concept of non-randomness.
>>
>> You haven't looked very hard, then.
>
> Note I said **definition,** not explanation. I agree that very many explanations of selection as nonrandom exist.

Have you ever seen a definition of natural
selection that included the concept of randomness.

It wasn't necessary for Darwin to include the the
concept of randomness or non-randomness in his
description of natural selection From his
description anyone can tell that it is a
non-random process.

--
Richard McBane

[Burkhard]

In addition to the other quotes given to you, here a particularly nice
one - my emphasis added:

"It {Darwin's theory of Natural selection] DIFFERS from the theory of
Buffon in two important particulars: it embraces all the facts, and
supplies a cause adequate to explain them. This cause is natural
selection, which CONVERTS the RANDOM 'pressure' in Buffon's theory into
a precisely REGULATED PRINCIPLE. Random pressure alone could never
produce the beautifully symmetrical form of the hexagonal cell with the
pyramidal bottom; but it could and must have produced the intersection
of cylindrical cells among possibly many extinct species of bees, such
as the Melipona. Whenever this intersection occurred in crowded nests,
it must clearly have been of great benefit in securing economy of
precious wax"

(Extracts from Darwin's notes throughout.] 1882. In: Romanes, G. J.,
Animal intelligence. London: Kegan Paul Trench & Co p. 175

Do you see how Darwin takes here Buffon's proposal that fixation of a
trait in a population is a random process and turns it into something
that is not any longer just random, but, in darwin;s words, a "regulated
principle" - and he then explains with a simple example how Buffon's
explanation through random processes in his version becomes one through
non-random natural selection?

[Ray Martinez]

The claim above says I badly mistook Dawkins as talking about natural selection when he was actually talking about mutation. Let's fact check.

From the John Bode message where the quotation was introduced, as found easily in the link:

http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

Dawkins: "The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations..."

I contend the above quotation begins our context and is referring to natural selection, not mutation. One way we know this is true is because in Darwin's time mutation or variation was a completely unknown process assumed non-designed. Darwin was explicating natural selection as producing "gradual step-by-step transformations." Dawkins even said he was conveying "Darwin's answer."

THEN Dawkins says, in the precise context of "Darwin's answer....from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, *relative to its predecessor*, to have arisen by chance."

"Each successive change in the ***gradual evolutionary process***....to have arisen by chance" speaks of natural selection. PRIOR statement accounts for mutation even though he didn't mention mutation. He surely isn't repeating himself in two consecutive sentences as talking about mutation in each sentence.

So in the context of explaining "Darwin's answer," Dawkins makes two positive statements that each step (= mutation and selection) could have been by chance.

So Sean's claim that I badly misread Dawkins is completely false. All we have in Sean is just plain shock that nonrandom is a subjective claim not found in Darwin, but Dawkins. To preserve his view Sean attempted to suggest a clear Dawkins quotation was really all about mutation, not selection. Dawkins book, like Darwin's book, is about natural selection (see both cover titles).

Dawkins, like I said, goes on to say the cumulative process is nonrandom but that is beside the point. My claim remains supported: Darwin said nothing about a nonrandom selection process, Dawkins was the one who said it.

Ray

[snip Sean repeating his well-known "understanding" of mutation and selection....]

[Ray Martinez]

Four points:

First, I haven't had the time to answer your messages in other topics that address relevant issues in this topic. As you know I do answer your posts regularly.

Second, In the OP I did say that by authoring this topic I was conducting research into my evolution refutation work.

Third, That said, thanks for finding the Romanes quote and text. Since I am unfamiliar with this text, I need time to read and study the quotation.

Fourth, The previous quotation you produced in another topic said nothing about nonrandom. Please, by all means, reproduce said quote here. And don't forget that in the past you have said ANY description of the selection process means nonrandom. IIRC you said "good" meant "nonrandom."

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 2:34:56 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

Do you agree that the above quotation was written by Romanes, and not Darwin?

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

That reflects a terrible grasp of how English works. In the sentence, "Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, *relative to its predecessor*, to have arisen by chance," the subject is "each successive change." "In the gradual evolutionary process" is a prepositional phrase, specifying where "each successive change" exists. We can ditch that prepositional phrase as well as the conditional phrase that follows, without altering the essental meaning of the sentence, which is:

Each successive change was simple enough to have arisen by chance.

In other words, individual changes arose by chance.

>
> So in the context of explaining "Darwin's answer," Dawkins makes two positive statements that each step (= mutation and selection) could have been by chance.
>
> So Sean's claim that I badly misread Dawkins is completely false. All we have in Sean is just plain shock that nonrandom is a subjective claim not found in Darwin, but Dawkins. To preserve his view Sean attempted to suggest a clear Dawkins quotation was really all about mutation, not selection. Dawkins book, like Darwin's book, is about natural selection (see both cover titles).
>
> Dawkins, like I said, goes on to say the cumulative process is nonrandom but that is beside the point. My claim remains supported: Darwin said nothing about a nonrandom selection process, Dawkins was the one who said it.
>
> Ray

Except I have twice presented you with a quote from Darwin that clearly indicates that Natural Selection, as he defined it, was a non-random process. He doesn't have to use that word or synonyms to indicate this. He notes that natural selection favors some traits and discourages others. That's what a non-random process DOES.

Not that it ultimately matters what either Dawkins OR Darwin said or meant. You're obscuring the forest with trees, wittingly or not. The fact is, Natural Selection IS a non-random process.

In a random process, each option among the set of options has an equal possibility of occurance.
In a non-random process, some option or options among the set of options has/have a greater chance of occurance.

In natural selection, some options (better fit individuals surviving and breeding) have a greater chance than other options (less fit individuals surviving and breeding). As this is the case, Natural Selection IS a non-random process. And that, as you seem fond of saying, is a FACT.

[Burkhard]

No, Romanes is the editor (hence the "in" in my citation) . The text is
Darwin's, from his letters and notes that Romanes published - he
submitted them shortly before Darwin's death, but they only came out in
print posthumously.

The introduction to the modern edition (1977, by R B Freeman) reads:
"Romanes sent this to the press before Darwin's death, and the preface
contains a note to that effect. The book is largely made up of long
quotations from other works, including The origin of species and The
descent of man; but it also contains a number of extracts from Darwin's
notes on behaviour, especially of the social insects, which he had lent
to Romanes."





.

[Burkhard]

Not the way I would have expressed it, but this might be more the
result, again, of your odd style than a disagreement about content.

"Non-random"for a process simply means: there is an X (a trait) which is
at least a contributory cause to the result of the process, so that the
presence of X allows us to predict reliably the outcome (or, inversely,
explain the observed outcome)

"Being good" can be such an X, as is "being bad"; "being tall", being
small", "being red" etc.

So "being good" does not in general mean " being non-random", but in a
specific causal explanation, "being good" can be the trait that makes
the process non-random,



>
> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 2:09:57 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:
> On 3/9/2017 4:27 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:24:56 AM UTC-8, John Bode wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:04:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of
> >>> fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I
> >>> asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said
> >>> natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
> >>>
> >>> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural
> >>> selection that included the concept of non-randomness.
> >>
> >> You haven't looked very hard, then.
> >
> > Note I said **definition,** not explanation. I agree that very many explanations of selection as nonrandom exist.
>
> Have you ever seen a definition of natural
> selection that included the concept of randomness.
>

No, have not.

> It wasn't necessary for Darwin to include the

> concept of randomness or non-randomness in his

> description of natural selection. From his

> description anyone can tell that it is a
> non-random process.

We need to observe an important distinction: selection speaks of death or elimination: the same says nothing about the action of selection. Since Darwin was advocating Materialism (NS is a fully material causal agent) in the context of opposing design in nature, anyone can tell he was attempting to convey a non-teleological and undirected process. And we need to also remember that science, at the time, had ZERO knowledge about variation as a mutational process.

I contend non-designed and undirected correspond with randomness, not nonrandomness. Nonrandom is NOT an expectation of undirectedness.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I've found two reproductions of the original on-line, one in Google Books and one on another site. When viewing the work in these conditions your quote appears to be Romanes. I'm having trouble retaining the link for copy and pasting.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

https://books.google.com/books?id=n_MYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Romanes+Animal+Intelligence&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqo7Sm0srSAhXHgFQKHfpFDw4Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Romanes%20Animal%20Intelligence&f=false

Scroll to page 175.

If link doesn't work then simply traverse to Google Books, "Romanes Animal Intelligence."

Review the text, I'm almost certain the quote at issue was written by Romanes because Darwin's quotes appear in a different font size.

Ray

[R. Dean]

On 3/6/2017 5:28 PM, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:04:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
>>

>> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness. Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random? After a number of replies I will reveal where non-random is obtained.
>>
>> Make no mistake, I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work by authoring this topic.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Let's take you through this again, using a herd of gazelle as our example.
>
> In any given population, there is going to be a variety of breeding success. Some members will breed extensively, some with breed a little, and some won't get to breed at all. The result of this is that, in the next generation, the offspring of the highly successful breeders will be highly represented, the mediocre breeders will be somewhat represented, and the non-breeders... well, they won't be represented at all. That's natural selection.
>
> We also know that, within a population, individuals will have a variety of qualities. Some faster, some slower, some smarter, some dumber, etc. etc. Since we're dealing with gazelle here, let's focus in on speed.
>
> If natural selection were random, every gazelle would have the same odds of being a successful breeder. Success would be randomly distributed. Regardless of how fast or slow a gazelle is, it would have an equal shot at being highly represented in the next generation.
>
> But that isn't what we observe. What we observe is that, as a general rule, faster gazelle tend to out-survive slower gazelle, because slower gazelle get caught and eaten by lions. As such, the faster gazelles will have greater breeding success, and their offspring be more highly represented in future generations. There is a NON-RANDOM RELATIONSHIP between a gazelle's speed and its odds of being a successful breeder. Faster gazelles tend to survive and breed, slower gazelles tend to get eaten.
>
> That is natural selection as we see it in the world, and its impact on the population over time is non-random. To whit: if a population is under selective pressure, natural selection will always push a population, generation after generation, in the direction of whatever qualities promote successful breeding.
>
> I have a feeling that this whole thing may hinge on the meaning you're attributing to the word random. So let me be clear, the applicable definition of "random" here is the one that is applicable to statistics: "being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence." (m-w.com) In this context, the word has nothing to do specifically with lacking an intent or plan, and has everything to do with a lack of a pattern. Random, in this context, just means that any outcome is equally likely.
>
> Natural selection is non-random, because the outcomes of natural selection are not all equally likely. They form a pattern.
>
Why are the young gazelles not caught first and eaten by your lions?
Certainly, they can be outrun by even the slowest adults. Why are they
not the first prey?

[Sean Dillon]

Often they are.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:29:56 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:04:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
> >
> > To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness. Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random? After a number of replies I will reveal where non-random is obtained.
> >
> > Make no mistake, I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work by authoring this topic.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Let's take you through this again, using a herd of gazelle as our example.
>
> In any given population, there is going to be a variety of breeding success. Some members will breed extensively, some with breed a little, and some won't get to breed at all. The result of this is that, in the next generation, the offspring of the highly successful breeders will be highly represented, the mediocre breeders will be somewhat represented, and the non-breeders... well, they won't be represented at all. That's natural selection.
>
> We also know that, within a population, individuals will have a variety of qualities. Some faster, some slower, some smarter, some dumber, etc. etc. Since we're dealing with gazelle here, let's focus in on speed.
>
> If natural selection were random, every gazelle would have the same odds of being a successful breeder. Success would be randomly distributed. Regardless of how fast or slow a gazelle is, it would have an equal shot at being highly represented in the next generation.
>
> But that isn't what we observe. What we observe is that, as a general rule, faster gazelle tend to out-survive slower gazelle, because slower gazelle get caught and eaten by lions. As such, the faster gazelles will have greater breeding success, and their offspring be more highly represented in future generations. There is a NON-RANDOM RELATIONSHIP between a gazelle's speed and its odds of being a successful breeder. Faster gazelles tend to survive and breed, slower gazelles tend to get eaten.
>
> That is natural selection as we see it in the world, and its impact on the population over time is non-random.

In the extensive explanation of NS seen above the speed of a gazelle is offered as ensuring the faster gazelles will survive and breed, slower ones will not. Then based on this logical observation the selection process is asserted nonrandom. The conclusion is not supported by the argument. No concept in the argument has any correspondence with nonrandomness. Speed and ensuing survival or less speed and ensuing lack of survival, in both scenarios, have no relevance to the action of nonrandomness except by assertion.

>To whit: if a population is under selective pressure, natural selection will always push a population, generation after generation, in the direction of whatever qualities promote successful breeding.
>
> I have a feeling that this whole thing may hinge on the meaning you're attributing to the word random. So let me be clear, the applicable definition of "random" here is the one that is applicable to statistics: "being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence." (m-w.com) In this context, the word has nothing to do specifically with lacking an intent or plan, and has everything to do with a lack of a pattern. Random, in this context, just means that any outcome is equally likely.
>
> Natural selection is non-random, because the outcomes of natural selection are not all equally likely. They form a pattern.

As I've already said: nonrandom selection is inferred from the results of organized complexity. Since organization is the effect or main object of explanation nothing is being said about NS; rather, the undisputed fact of organization is restated as an inference supporting nonrandom causality. In case my point is somehow missed, I'm saying nonrandom obtained from the effect side of the equation, not the causal side.

Ray

[August Rode]

On 3/9/2017 11:23 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:29:56 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:04:57 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were, by definition, non-random.
>>>
>>> To be quite honest, I've never seen a definition of evolution or natural selection that included the concept of non-randomness. Do I know where evolutionary theorists obtain the idea of non-random? Yes, I do. And it's not by definition. So I ask any interested party, preferably an Evolutionist, where did you obtain the idea of non-random? After a number of replies I will reveal where non-random is obtained.
>>>
>>> Make no mistake, I am conducting research into my evolution refutation work by authoring this topic.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Let's take you through this again, using a herd of gazelle as our example.
>>
>> In any given population, there is going to be a variety of breeding success. Some members will breed extensively, some with breed a little, and some won't get to breed at all. The result of this is that, in the next generation, the offspring of the highly successful breeders will be highly represented, the mediocre breeders will be somewhat represented, and the non-breeders... well, they won't be represented at all. That's natural selection.
>>
>> We also know that, within a population, individuals will have a variety of qualities. Some faster, some slower, some smarter, some dumber, etc. etc. Since we're dealing with gazelle here, let's focus in on speed.
>>
>> If natural selection were random, every gazelle would have the same odds of being a successful breeder. Success would be randomly distributed. Regardless of how fast or slow a gazelle is, it would have an equal shot at being highly represented in the next generation.
>>
>> But that isn't what we observe. What we observe is that, as a general rule, faster gazelle tend to out-survive slower gazelle, because slower gazelle get caught and eaten by lions. As such, the faster gazelles will have greater breeding success, and their offspring be more highly represented in future generations. There is a NON-RANDOM RELATIONSHIP between a gazelle's speed and its odds of being a successful breeder. Faster gazelles tend to survive and breed, slower gazelles tend to get eaten.
>>
>> That is natural selection as we see it in the world, and its impact on the population over time is non-random.
>
> In the extensive explanation of NS seen above the speed of a gazelle is offered as ensuring the faster gazelles will survive and breed, slower ones will not. Then based on this logical observation the selection process is asserted nonrandom. The conclusion is not supported by the argument.

Everyone but you seems to think it is, Ray. If natural selection was a
random process, then that would be akin to saying that the environment
that an organism finds itself in has no bearing on the reproductive
success of that organism. Sean said as much to you above when he wrote,

"If natural selection were random, every gazelle would have the same

odds of being a successful breeder." But that clearly isn't what happens
in the real world. The environment that an organism finds itself in
*does* have an effect on its reproductive success. In environments where
there are fast predators, fast gazelles tend to leave more offspring
than their slower herdmates.

[RichD]

On March 7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Bill Rogers and other Evolutionists have recently reiterated the
>> claim of fact that evolution and/or natural selection is a non-random
>> process. I asked Bill WHERE he obtained the idea? He and other
>> Evolutionists said natural selection and evolution were,
>> by definition, non-random.
>

> Selection is by definition non-random; I thought you knew
> that.

huh?
Of course it's random, it's practically a mathematician's
canonical random process.

> Then, as with many words, you don't know what "non-random"
> means.

And neither do you.

--
Rich

[jillery]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 20:58:34 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course they are. On average, in most populations, only two
offspring from each pair of gazelle will survive to adulthood. The
rest are killed or die of disease.

The key phrase above is "on average". There will be some pairs of
gazelles with no surviving offspring, and other pairs with more than
two. It is that difference, and the different genes those offspring
carry, on which evolution is based.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.