Evolutionary events do they happen by chance?
backspace
Inez
> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
What are your pragmatics for "evolutionary events"?
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
certainly mutations do. what is an 'evolutionary event'?
for someone who has OCD regarding the language of others, you seem to
be cavalier with respect to your own use.
Cubist
"by" and "chance"? Untill Backspace can explain his pragmatics to the
rest of us, he is not even wrong...
John Harshman
> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>
Depends on what you mean by "evolutionary events" and "chance". What are
your pragmatics?
Martin Hutton
On 4-Aug-2007, backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
Second Inez's question and add mine:
What is your intent with this post?
--
Martin Hutton
J. J. Lodder
> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
You suffer from creationist indoctrination,
and ask a meaningless question.
'Chance' is the term we use in cases
where we don't know, or don't want to know the causes.
To construct 'chance' as a cause
is a fundamental misunderstanding.
Jan
mel turner
news:1186250771....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
Define your terms. Do your pragmatics have intent?
Does your intent have pragmatics?
The answer to whatever you mean is likely to be
"yes and no, sometimes".
By the way, your nym is rather appropriate for someone
who so stubbornly resists ever making any progress in his
discussions. Nice choice.
cheers
rev.goetz
> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
All evolutionary events such as various mutations and drift and
selection have an indeterminate probability that is greater than 0 and
less than 1.
LloydBrown
Wow. What a gangbang. And entirely deserved.
Inez
Now that you mention it, I'm a little fuzzy on what he means by "Do."
Perhaps he might want to comment on that as well.
backspace
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>
> You suffer from creationist indoctrination,
> and ask a meaningless question.
It is not really a question but a statement by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
You have thus accused the AAAS of making meaningless statement.
AAAS says:"....as a consequence of millions of years of *CHANCE
EVOLUTIONARY EVENTS*...."
---------
In Origins Research (14(1), 1991), Mark Hartwig and Dennis Wagner
evaluate Project 2061: a major educational reform sponsored by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). They
identify the same problem: scientists who fail to distinguish between
science and naturalistic philosophy, and who see themselves as an
elite with a mission to promulgate their own world view.
In the publications related to Project 2061, Hartwig and Wagner find
many references to `mental visions of reality': an organising concept
on which students are expected to hang the facts of biology. By this,
the science educators mean the evolutionary world view. The AAAS
report dealing with biological science includes the following passage:
`Earth abounds in a diversity of living creatures, which all interact
to some degree. Each type shares properties common to all life, and
yet each is different, as a consequence of millions of years of
*CHANCE EVOLUTIONARY EVENTS* . Identifying the differences and tracing
their origins provides the mental framework for comprehending the
place we humans have in the biosphere, as well as our present impact
on it'.
Steven J.
> On Aug 4, 9:28 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>
> > You suffer from creationist indoctrination,
> > and ask a meaningless question.
>
> It is not really a question but a statement by the American
> Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
> You have thus accused the AAAS of making meaningless statement.
>
fall if it turns out that some AAAS writer has produced a vague and
ambiguous statement. However, the AAAS statement provides some
context (and implies more) to help the astute reader figure out what
the terms "chance" and "evolutionary events" might mean, whereas your
question did not. Context, and its affect on the meaning of
statements, seems to be a recurrent blind spot for creationists.
>
-- [snip]
>
> `Earth abounds in a diversity of living creatures, which all interact
> to some degree. Each type shares properties common to all life, and
> yet each is different, as a consequence of millions of years of
> *CHANCE EVOLUTIONARY EVENTS* . Identifying the differences and tracing
> their origins provides the mental framework for comprehending the
> place we humans have in the biosphere, as well as our present impact
> on it'.
>
mutations in particular populations, and the particular combinations
of environmental factors that determined which traits, at any given
place and time, were "fitter" or "less fit."
"Chance" is a harder nut to crack. Normally, "chance" refers (as at
least one other poster has pointed out) to our ignorance of all the
causes at work in a situation: we can't predict exactly what will
happen, but we can estimate the "chance" that a particular event will
occur. "Chance" also sometimes means "random," in the sense that the
causes of an event are uncorrelated with the causes of our interest in
that event. For example, if I meet an aquaintance from work at the
store "by chance," I am not at the store for no reason, and neither is
he, but our reasons have nothing to do with one another and there is
no particular reason for us to be there at the same time. If I toss a
pair of dice in a "game of chance," the outcome of the dice throw is
deterministic, governed by the laws of physics and the initial
position and forces applied to the dice. But since I can't control
those forces precisely enough to control the outcome of the throw, the
way the dice land is random -- "chance" -- with respect to my wishes
for the game.
Mutations are, to all appearances, "random" with respect to the needs
of organisms in which they occur (the causes of mutations are not
related to the causes of those mutations being neutral, harmful, or
beneficial). In addition, the various chemical and physical
interactions (e.g. cosmic rays sleeting through an organism, two
molecules colliding in a cell in a certain way, etc.) are too complex
and too obscure to be known in detail and used to predict when and
where a particular mutation will occur. So mutations can be said to
be "chance" events, and, since they are important in evolution, to be
"chance evolutionary events."
Now, in another thread, I have tried to explain to you that natural
selection, here and now, is "random" ("chance") with respect to future
environments, even though it is the opposite of random with respect to
the present environment. The causes of a particular trait being
beneficial or detrimental, here and now, might not be the same causes,
and probably don't cause the causes, of that same trait being
beneficial or detrimental to an organism's descendants a million years
later and a thousand miles away. That is, as far as is known,
particular environments and selective regimes don't pop up to prepare
organisms for the next round of natural selection propelling a lineage
"up the evolutionary ladder." There is no evolutionary ladder, only
an evolutionary tree built by contingent adaptions to contingent
environments.
-- Steven J.
Garamond Lethe
I'm mostly concerned with the pragmatics of the question mark at the end.
This doesn't appear to be a query intended to elicit information -- very
curious.
BS -- the floor is yours.
TomS
<1186250771....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, backspace stated..."
>
>Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>
Are design events - those unrecognizable events assigned
to inscrutable designers done by unspecifiable means at
indeterminate times for mysterious purposes - distinguishable
from chance?
(It makes Churchill's "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery
inside an enigma" sound predictable.)
--
---Tom S.
"... to call in a special or miraculous act of creation reduces every
conceivable world to accident."
Jacob Bronowski, in "American Scholar" v.43 (1974) page 400
backspace
> On Aug 4, 9:28 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>
> > You suffer from creationist indoctrination,
> > and ask a meaningless question.
>
> It is not really a question but a statement by the American
> Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
> You have thus accused the AAAS of making meaningless statement.
>
> AAAS says:"....as a consequence of millions of years of *CHANCE
> EVOLUTIONARY EVENTS*...."
> `Earth abounds in a diversity of living creatures, which all interact
> to some degree. Each type shares properties common to all life, and
> yet each is different, as a consequence of millions of years of
> *CHANCE EVOLUTIONARY EVENTS* . Identifying the differences and tracing
> their origins provides the mental framework for comprehending the
> place we humans have in the biosphere, as well as our present impact
> on it'.
Nobody established that there is such a thing as chance evolutionary
events in the first place because "evolution" is undefined. And since
it is undefined we are being told today that it doesn't happen by
"chance" events. If only somebody would define what an "evolutionary
event" is?
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Nobody established that there is such a thing as chance evolutionary
>events in the first place because "evolution" is undefined. And since
>it is undefined we are being told today that it doesn't happen by
>"chance" events. If only somebody would define what an "evolutionary
>event" is?
using backspace's 'logic', the following terms are undefined:
atom
science
theory
physics
chemistry
god
IOW his argument is useless.
Desertphile
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
No. You have been told this already. Are you learning dissabled?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
backspace
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:06:11 -0700, backspace
>
> > Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>
> No. You have been told this already. Are you learning dissabled?
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Both you and J.J Lodder walked straight into my trap. It wasn't my
question but a statement by the AAAS around 1991.
It just demonstrates my point that there is no theory of evolution.
Monod says it happens by chance and so does the AAAS, Dawkins, Lodder
and Dererphile says no, yet you all refer to a "Theory of Evolution".
What theory?
wf...@comcast.net
chance happens in quantum theory. you saying quantum theory isn't a
theory?
you have an unrecognizable view of science...and of religion
Bob T.
Ah! I'm glad you've posted. I've always wanted to ask this question,
and you are the perfect person to ask: How does it feel to be a
laughingstock? Do you get some particular pleasure from being so well-
known as a fool that the first dozen replies to your post were all
ridiculing you? Is it your "intent" to be repeatedly humiliated? If
so, then your posts are not even wrong.
- Bob T.
DAVID GREENE
> <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>
> No. You have been told this already. Are you learning dissabled?
What the ... ? of course they can happen by chance, not all of them of
course.
Some are undisputibly directed by intelligent agents, others by non-random
processes and some by chance.
Dave Greene
aegis
Yes and that chance is a function of environmental
and genetic factors.
--
aegis
backspace
> >> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
> > No. You have been told this already. Are you learning dissabled?
> course. Some are undisputibly directed by intelligent agents, others by non-random
> processes and some by chance. Dave Greene
Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a
reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene
- is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
(Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342.)
Notice the phrase "random process" by Denton. He probably is assuming
that Darwin used the word "random", but Darwin never used the word. So
who's theory of evolution is in a 'crises'?
Garamond Lethe
That's over twenty years old.
Here's what Denton has to say now.
<q>
"It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented
here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of
modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be
comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all
phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are
ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption
which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist
school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not
natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature
from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to
human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving
the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the
whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption
of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality
of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on
earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less
natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page
xvii-xviii).
</q>
_Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe_
Michael Denton, 2000.
Quoted from:
Michael Denton, is now an Evolutionist
A review by Gert Korthof
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/theory-in-crisis.html
Evidently, evolution is no longer in crisis.
backspace
> _Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe_
> Michael Denton, 2000.
> Quoted from:
> Michael Denton, is now an Evolutionist
> A review by Gert Korthof
> http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/theory-in-crisis.html
>
> Evidently, evolution is no longer in crisis.
to some Theory of Evolution and in using this phrase many people
assume that it has got something to do with "random" a word Darwin
never used. The sciences has moved on in the last 150 years. What
would be the modern Theory of Evolution that can explain to me how to
derive the transfer function between a gazelles muscles and brain and
or the lion chasing it. How do these transfer functions differ in the
Laplace domain? What are the non-linear effects in other words does
the transfer function change as the input signal from the brain
varies. What about the bandwidth constraints the time it takes the
nerve signal to travel. These are the issues I want this much vaunted
Theory of Evolution to explain. Since Darwin couldn't do algebra he
was in no position to even specify the problem
Marty Erwin
Random process as a phrase is a complete misnomer anyway. Chemical bonding
is not a particularly random process in biology. It happens with regular
frequency, else we would all be rather depleted of energy stores as ADP does
require another phosphate periodically to keep us firing on all 'cylinders'
to put it into mechanistic terms. Random changes in DNA appear to be a
singular point of argumentation about the frequency of specific chemical
bonds occurring, specifically those that result in beneficial change of DNA
as evidence by an increase in fitness for an organism in which such an event
occurs, as well as descendants of that organism possessed of the same
allele. In one view, there is a one in four (1:4) opportunity for such an
event to occur in each and every replication pass within germ cell lines.
While some of those events are unlikely due to incompatibility with an
alternate base pair due to H bonds, such events continue to occur. Given
adequate ambient energy for excitation numerous changes in DNA can and do
occur. Why does this known phenomena present continue to baffle otherwise
competent chemists, such as Denton? I don't know. It is baffling that
persons who know chemistry so well can find ways to manipulate their views
of it to support personal ideology over reality.
Cheers and happy recombinations to you!
backspace
"If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it
will be no use prating on about what the fossils say. No good
Darwinian's belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for
gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it." Ridley, Mark
[zoologist, Oxford University], "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist,
Vol. 90, pp.830-832, 25 June 1981, p.832.
Well then why are Darwinists using the word "evolution" then?
Darwin's entire argument was based on the fossil record (note record
not evidence) and the word "evolve" conveyed this intent. Now what
intent does Mark Ridley want to convey with "evoluition" - what is his
pragmatics with 'evolution' if the fossil record is not the central
theme anymore.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Aug 11, 3:48 am, aegis <ae...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 11:06 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>
> > Yes and that chance is a function of environmental
> > and genetic factors.
>
> "If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it
> will be no use prating on about what the fossils say. No good
> Darwinian's belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for
> gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it." Ridley, Mark
> [zoologist, Oxford University], "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist,
> Vol. 90, pp.830-832, 25 June 1981, p.832.
>
> Well then why are Darwinists using the word "evolution" then?
Because they know what it means, know the evidence which supports it,
and because they are clear about its meaning do not indulge in
entirely phony arguments about "pragmatics" which are totally and
utterly irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory.
> Darwin's entire argument was based on the fossil record
What the fuck!!!!
I suggest that you *read* Darwin if you think that. The fossil record
is *NOT* central to his argument.
> (note record
> not evidence) and the word "evolve" conveyed this intent. Now what
> intent does Mark Ridley want to convey with "evoluition" - what is his
> pragmatics with 'evolution' if the fossil record is not the central
> theme anymore.
Making a public demonstration of your profound ignorance does not add
weight to your argument.
Get a freaking education.
RF
chris.li...@gmail.com
> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
All I can say after examining many of the responses to this question,
is that the karmic descendants of T. rex have come home to roost...
Chris
backspace
> Because they know what it means, know the evidence which supports it,
> and because they are clear about its meaning do not indulge in
> entirely phony arguments about "pragmatics" which are totally and
> utterly irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory.
And now we are getting closer to the heart of the matter. I have been
googling for Natural Selection and Pragmatics but can't find any
linguistic analysis - pragmatics - in the academic literature
concerning Natural Selection. It is scary situation indeed where
everybody using the word "selection" and "natural selection" assumes
that they all have the same intent with it. There seems to be no
debate in academia about the intent with "Natural Selection". Is it
really possible that it is somehow "forbidden" to publish articles in
the scholarly Journal of Pragmatics about the pragmatics with Natural
Selection?
My stance concerning "evolution" and "Natural Selection" is not that
it is wrong, but that each person using the phrases must define for
me his pragmatics. Or we start haveing the situation where "evolution"
no longer means 'progress' as Sapolsky would have it. It is
interesting to note how Sapolsky want's to establish dual meanings for
the word "evolution" where the intent with the word would only be able
to be derived by the surrounding sentences of the person.
richard I would urge you to Google for "pragmatics" , "intent",
"Darwin", "Natural selection" and you will notice that my threads on
these issues are in the high Google rankings out of page hits
numbering over 180 000 returns. We have a "structural ambiguity" with
this phrase "Natural Selection" Since when are we not allowed to ask:
What is your intent with Natural Selection? But for every other phrase
and sentences that we use asking the intent is allowed.
For example Google for "pragmatics" and "intent" returns:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1152043.1152049
Logical sentences as the intent of concepts
Pragmatics plays an important role in correctly understanding
sentences. ... whose intent is a set of sentences implied semantically
by the sentence, ...
If the ACM.ORG journal article can state that pragmatics plays an
important role in correctly understanding senteces that by who's
decree is the phrase "Natural Selection" excempt?
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Aug 12, 8:39 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > Because they know what it means, know the evidence which supports it,
> > and because they are clear about its meaning do not indulge in
> > entirely phony arguments about "pragmatics" which are totally and
> > utterly irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory.
>
> And now we are getting closer to the heart of the matter. I have been
> googling for Natural Selection and Pragmatics but can't find any
> linguistic analysis - pragmatics - in the academic literature
> concerning Natural Selection.
That's because it's science and not linguistics.
You won't find any scientist discussing the "pragmatics" of any theory
in science.
This is because scientists understand the meaning of the words they
use in the context in which they use them.
As you can't even be bothered to read the scientific texts you are
criticising, I suggest that you stop this stupid pretence that you
have any argument to offer and get an education instead.
RF
Garamond Lethe
> On Aug 12, 11:32 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> _Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe_
>> Michael Denton, 2000.
>> Quoted from:
>> Michael Denton, is now an Evolutionist
>> A review by Gert Korthof
>> http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/theory-in-crisis.html
>>
>> Evidently, evolution is no longer in crisis.
> Your quote from Denton doesn't answer my question.
You had a question? I saw several demands, but no questions....
Desertphile
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2:45 am, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:06:11 -0700, backspace
> >
> > <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
> >
> > No. You have been told this already. Are you learning dissabled?
> Both you and J.J Lodder walked straight into my trap. It wasn't my
> question but a statement by the AAAS around 1991.
The AAAS statement was rhetorical; you, on the other hand, show no
ability to learn.
> It just demonstrates my point that there is no theory of evolution.
> Monod says it happens by chance and so does the AAAS, Dawkins, Lodder
> and Dererphile says no, yet you all refer to a "Theory of Evolution".
> What theory?
The answer is: get yourself some remedial high school education.
WTF should anyone do your own homework?
--
Desertphile
"evolutionary events," by which I assumed the liar and fool who
posted the "question" means genetic drift, gene frame shifting,
alpha partical mutation, and other phenomena that makes evolution
work, is certainly chaotic but I do not consider them "by chance."
Give the complete knowledge of an initial state and all forces
that act on that initial state, it is theoretically possible to
predict all future "evolutionary events."
Desertphile
> On Aug 11, 3:11 am, "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
> > > No. You have been told this already. Are you learning dissabled?
> > of course they can happen by chance, not all of them of
> > course. Some are undisputibly directed by intelligent agents, others by non-random
> > processes and some by chance. Dave Greene
>
> Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a
> reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene
> - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
> (Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
> (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342.)
Denton changed his tune: he now agrees that evolution is not a
random process."
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 11, 3:48 am, aegis <ae...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 11:06 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>>
>> Yes and that chance is a function of environmental
>> and genetic factors.
>
>"If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it
>will be no use prating on about what the fossils say. No good
>Darwinian's belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for
>gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it." Ridley, Mark
>[zoologist, Oxford University], "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist,
>Vol. 90, pp.830-832, 25 June 1981, p.832.
>
>Well then why are Darwinists using the word "evolution" then?
you don't understand what you posted, do you? what ridley said was
that you religious fanatics don't care about evidence. religion is the
only thing you think makes sense and you'll destroy science to
accomplish this.
>Darwin's entire argument was based on the fossil record
hmmm guess backspace has never heard of 'darwins finches'...
oh, darn...an inconvenient fact.
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 12, 8:39 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> Because they know what it means, know the evidence which supports it,
>> and because they are clear about its meaning do not indulge in
>> entirely phony arguments about "pragmatics" which are totally and
>> utterly irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory.
>
>And now we are getting closer to the heart of the matter. I have been
>googling for Natural Selection and Pragmatics but can't find any
>linguistic analysis - pragmatics - in the academic literature
>concerning Natural Selection
nor can he find any for 'relativity' or 'atomic theory' or any other
theory of science...
IOW his 'argument' is irrelevant.
backspace
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:11:34 GMT, "DAVID GREENE"
>
> > "Desertphile" <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Do evolutionary events happen by chance?
>
> > > No. You have been told this already. Are you learning dissabled?
> > What the ... ? of course they can happen by chance, not all of them of
> > course.
> > Some are undisputibly directed by intelligent agents, others by non-random
> > processes and some by chance.
>
> "evolutionary events," by which I assumed the liar and fool who
> posted the "question" means genetic drift, gene frame shifting,
> alpha partical mutation, and other phenomena that makes evolution
In other words you are asking what was the pragmatics with
"evolutionary events" in the AAAS statement? Nobody knows ofcourse
including themselves.
Desertphile
He has been corrected on the subject in the past, at length. His
inability to learn appears to be pathological.