The occurence of evolution is NOT random.

[sketchbook1]

what does it help, for your argument's sake, that it's not random? It is the Evolution camp that demands it to be random, not the ID or Creation camps...

by arguing for non-random, ordered and purposeful evolution, you're only painting yourself into an ID box, and opening yourself up to the Uncaused Cause...

[themadhair]

When you drop something, have you ever noticed how it always falls in the same direction (i.e. downwards)? That isn’t random and it is explained by gravity. No designer required to make the item fall in the same direction.

Evolution is the same way. It is a series of processes that are governed by simple well-understood laws.

Do you see why non-random does not imply ID, and underlying error you are making in what you understand non-random to be?

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair I understand perfectly that there are laws in the universe, and that things always fall downward

But please explain how non-random does not imply purposeful.

And while you're at that, please enlighten me on how a system which follows laws does not imply intelligence.

The very fact there is order in the universe, and the fact that we don't live in a Surreal world, implies purpose,.

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair Another part of my point was that by arguing that Evolution is not random, you are departing from standard pro-evolution views, which seem to take great pride in making sure nobody believes it can be anything but random. Most of the time, Random is the almighty element that makes Evolution God-less.

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair You should be trying to convince fellow pro-evolution supporters to use another term besides "random" mutation, and instead say, "ordered, non-random, but not intelligent" mutation...

[themadhair]

Why does order imply purpose and/or intelligence? Your thesis seems to be based on this assertion, and it is without a shred of evidence. If you think about it, the existence of simple laws capable of explaining the workings of the world serve to utterly undermine the need for any external intelligence. Moreover, the bare assertion that such a system needs an intelligence is as convincing as claiming a ball needs the influence of an intelligence in order to be able to fall.

[sketchbook1]

Are you a Deist?

[sketchbook1]

"Why does order imply purpose and/or intelligence?"

For me to say "order implies purpose and/or intelligence" is a self-evident statement, not an assertion.

I cannot use scientific reasoning or methodology to answer you here... the rules for that type of thing are more epistemological than scientific. "evidence" means something totally different in this context.

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair "If you think about it, the existence of simple laws capable of explaining the workings of the world serve to utterly undermine the need for any external intelligence. "

On the Contrary. That is my whole point-- and the whole ontological point!

"simple processes" explain the "how" and the "what" but they point to the "Why"-- they can never negate the "Why"... Science is arrogant if it believes it can even touch upon these areas of knowledge.

[themadhair]

How am I departing from evolutionary views??? The theory deals with definite mechanisms, and how those mechanisms operate, does it not? So how is this different from what I have argued? If you threw a ball into a field could you predict the exact spot in which the ball would come to rest? That you could not do so does not make gravity random. Similar reasoning applies to mutations. Basically you are simply misunderstanding the phrase ‘random’ in this context.

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair I never said you were departing from evolutionary views... I said you were departing from how many other people argue for evolution. It's a debate and logic issue, not a scientific one.

Ironically, I don't think you've understood my main assertion-- that it is your colleagues which always use the idea of the randomness of mutation in arguing against purpose and meaning in the system. Therefore it seemed strange to me to show how random isn't random somehow helps your case.

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair ran·dom [ran-duhm]

adjective

1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.

2. Statistics . of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

3. Building Trades .

a.(of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.

b.(of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.

c.constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.

[themadhair]

Copying errors, radiation damage, cellular malnutrition are all well-understood examples that cause mutations. The term ‘random’, in this context, refers to the disconnect between the cause of mutations and the environmental pressures that act on such mutations. The scientific community is using the term in a precise and well-defined context, and you simply are not aware of it.

[themadhair]

Here is an idea – how about listening to what I am saying and responding to that, rather than responding to things I have not said. Given how utterly incorrectly you appear to have interpreted the phrase ‘random mutation’, how am I supposed to have confidence that you are representing the views of these other so-called pro-evolution people you refer to? I think you bring your own misunderstandings to this debate to be honest, and referring to others is the means of introducing them.

[sketchbook1]

but you're using "random mutation" selectively, without seeing the logical conclusions brought about by that use...

you take your definition and your data, and then make the error of arguing that there is somehow order behind evolution, but not enough order to be Intelligent or Designed...

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. That's all.

[themadhair]

Science relies upon precision and the avoidance of ambiguity. Words, when used in scientific contexts, are very clearly defined. ‘Random mutation’ is a phrase with a very specific meaning. So far all you have done is to try attaching your own meanings onto this phrase while seemingly ignoring what the phrase actually means or why it is even used. In essence you are trying to introduce ideas through semantics rather than evidence or argumentation.

[themadhair]

Why do you keep referring to the words of others rather than what I say? All I have done is simply explain what a particular phrase means, and to question your philosophical extrapolations (because, if you read my comments, I haven’t actually made any). I find it odd that you will refer to Dawkins or evolution supporters or whatnot so frequently. Are you talking to me or not?

[themadhair]

IF a system is described by simple laws THEN it isn’t random.

IF a system is iterative through simple laws THEN it may converge on order.

What part of the above are incorrect? And what part of the above requires any reference to intelligence? I don’t get why you keep wanting assume your ‘self-evident truth’ rather than argue for it.

I’m actually enjoying this discussion – can you pm me to continue it?

[themadhair]

I still don’t get your central assertion that non-random implies purpose. Hell, I don’t even see the sense of using randomness as a counter for purpose either as you claim others do. I think trying to claim this as self-evident is a cop-out, and this assumption really needs serious supporting argumentation. Making claims about the world using semantic tools rather than a description and/or analysis of that world must be a non-starter surely? But this appears to be precisely what you are doing.

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair if it's a cop out then you need to quit putting a scientific way of knowing onto a different construct, such as logic and philosophy.

What you haven't even opened yourself up to, is that scientific method, and its rules for proof and evidence, don't apply to certain realms of human knowledge.

Self-evident statements, or self-refuting statements, have their own validity and force in debate and understanding concepts. Science isn't designed to tackle these questions.

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair and you try to use your field's definition of a word and then extrapolate philosophically from there into realms of understanding for which science was never developed nor equipped to even understand.

Evolution supporters use random one way when trying to counter arguments for Purpose in evolution, but then use random in the common definition when trying to counter the logical result of using random in the first way, to show there's order in Evolution...

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair see this video, which expresses the same issue I have with "random" and its selective usages by evolution supporters

[themadhair]

Per your definition evolution isn’t random. The laws it obeys constitute pattern, and the science outlines the reasons behind much of those laws. The ‘why’ is a flawed approach because appealing to an intelligence, without demonstrating such, is simply bare assertion. If you think about it you will realise that it doesn’t actually provide a why. ‘I don’t understand X’ is a poor foundation for an existence claim, and yet this what your ‘why’ reasoning is doing.

[themadhair]

The bottom line is this. The nature of the world is independent to your argument. Your argument is not based on the world, is not informed by the world and in no way requires any property of the world to be true. If you want to continue basing an argument on a word you misunderstand like random then feel free. I just don’t get the point.

No, I am not deist.

[sketchbook1]

@themadhair" You say, ‘I don’t understand X’ is a poor foundation for an existence claim, and yet this what your ‘why’ reasoning is doing."

but that was your beginning rebuke of me... my lack of understanding of a word and its use. Dawkins, the great champion of defending Darwinism, consistently oversteps his bounds and tries to impose Scientific understanding of words (like "random") on other areas of human understanding. And the philosophical and theological worlds are not impressed.

[Nixom1334]

Creation is what is truly random, because God supposedly created everything out of nothing but sheer imagination because he designed everything. why the fuck are they peacocks? 'cus they're pretty, why are they chimps? the very animal that helps show that humans can be similar to animals, why would god make them if it let to controversy? what would be the point of a giraffe having a long-ass neck if he could have easily made a shorter tree?

[dltanner99]

Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer

[monsta123x]

ok so evolution may not be random but there are many instances of complexity and order not goverened by evolution e.g the planet, its orbits

and the mountains etc. What is the non-random factor in that? If it wasnt from design then were these things just by chance? when i look at the

planet earth i find it impossible to accept that it was created due to sheer chance with all the rivers, valleys etc. (P.S: i am not referring to the

"planetary" fine-tuning argument)

[themadhair]

Gravity explains planetary orbits just fine. Nothing else really needed.

I do not understand what you mean by 'chance'. No one is claiming the features on the earth formed by chance, but they did form by physics and chemistry.

If your argument amounts to "I don't understand how this shit happened" then you don't have an argument, but rather a lack of education in the relevant sciences. This is even moreso if you have you have no positive evidence for any alternative you wish to offer.

[monsta123x]

@themadhair what i mean by chance is the idea that epicurus proposed i.e atoms are in continious motions and sometimes they collide together to form (by sheer chance) the objects that we see in the world. Now he used an infinite time to make his hypothesis work. Nevertheless theory of evolution shows that life's diversity needs not arise in that way. but what about the earth, mountains. if its not design then is it the collisions of atoms that takes shape of mountains, earth by sheer chance?

[monsta123x]

@themadhair my point is that atoms / energy themselves dont have any knowledge or intentions nevertheless they manage to arrange themselves in such exquisite structures like the orbits, planet earth , valleys etc. How do they know that they have to arrange themselves in such a way? how is it possible for mindless atoms to learn how to arrrange themselves?

[themadhair]

Chemistry. Atoms arrange themselves according to chemistry, which is in turn based on the electromagnetic force experienced by electrons.

Why you insist on ignoring the known laws of physics and chemistry to claim ‘chance did it’ is strange. You appear to be asking a question whose answer is right under your nose. Why is that?

[monsta123x]

@themadhair ok so ur point is that the atoms know how to arrange themselves becuase this universe has certain laws like that of chemistry, physics. (these laws are sort of rules). But this only pushes the question 1 step back. How did these laws knew how to be in order to cause the atoms to arrange themselves in complex structructure. At one point or another u must appeal to something with knowledge (a diety) that ordered the laws to be in such way. laws are mindless they cant think like we do.

[themadhair]

To be blunt - you are using phrases like 'know' and 'mindless' and ‘chance’, while utterly ignoring what is known about physics and chemistry, in order to try and cro-bar in an assertion you have feck all evidence for.

It really is quite simple. We observe the behaviour of atoms and see how they behave in accordance with simple laws. Your constant attempt to equate these simple and repeatable observations with ‘an appeal to X’ is, frankly, silly.

[monsta123x]

@themadhair yea ok but dont u find it amazing that there are laws that are causing atoms to arrange themselves in such structure? The universe could have been chaotic but its not. It has order. Why? Why does it have it? If ur saying that the laws r just there then why not say the samething about everything else eg the earth is just there and need no explanation.

[themadhair]

Ever wonder why people who are soaked are near a water source? Ever wonder why the phone book doesn’t contain any ex-directory numbers? Ever notice that Irish people tend to be from Ireland?

I don’t find it amazing for the same reason I don’t find any of the three truisms above amazing. If things were different you wouldn’t be here to ask your question. Given this I prefer to try understanding the workings of the world rather than dwell on unsupported speculation.

[itzahazylife]

@monsta123x

who knows if this is the only universe?..there could be so many universes that an ordered universe is actually inevitable, in such the same way that life arising on a planet that exists within an ordered universe is inevitable when there are trillions of other planets in that universe.

[itzahazylife]

@monsta123x

if earth was the only planet we knew existed,it would seem designed to harbor life. everything dialed in just right to eventually result in mankind..but,when we figure out how many other planets there are,and how many other configurations for planets there are,our planet becomes very likely via randomness. our universe is the only one we know of,so it appears to be perfectly dialed to result in order. but,like i said,an ordered universe may be likely via randomness in a multiverse.

[0Fear]

Randomness is an artificial construct used to describe events with complex or non observable causes. In order to claim that something is "completely random" you must have total information on the system. Example: ask someone to say the first word to come to their mind and you'll more than likely wont be able to predict it. However the thought process is not "truly random" despite the unlikliness of you knowing the persons thought path. Random is just a presumption made from ignorance.

[zenithar6666]

very good point, seems like a cop out to say random, there is nothing random about the purpose exhibited in all life, concious or not

[itzahazylife]

@0Fear

technically u are right, but then again u are also wrong..if we cannot discover the pattern of a system due to overwhelming complexity, then to our minds, the system would be random. because of our lack of information on such a system, what will occur next would be unknown to us, hence, random. sure, in reality the system may not ultimately be random, but if the system is too complex to have enough information on in order to find a pattern, then it'd be random to our perception.

[nvutube7]

The law of gravity, thermodynamics and the law of conservation of matter and energy cannot be proven, but based on 100% of human observation they are established. There is not one single counter example of those laws. DNA is a comunication system containing language, coded information, instructions and plans. Based on 100% of human observation such systems ONLY come by intelligent processes. We have 100% inferrence to design.

If you disagree, all you need is one single counter example.

[themadhair]

Genetic algorithms, basalt formations (such as Giants Causeway), snowflakes, virtually any complexifying chemical process, virtually any chemical feedback loop, etc.

If design is so inferable, then perhaps you could define a suitable metric for detecting it. Until you do, and present positive evidence, all you are doing is arguing from incredulity. Good luck with that.

If you understood information theory you would understand why the website is a joke.

[nvutube7]

Until you read all his material he has rigorously provided on his website and read the entire debate on infidels you will continue to offer objections such as the likes of your last post. Nothing else I can say. If it's not worth your time to personally investigate it, then it's not for you. All I can do is point you to it. Peace.

Regards

[Oicurmtoyoy]

If everything were designed, then why does the appendix exist, why do children die before birth, and why are there so many genetic imperfections?

[nvutube7]

Nice video. Well done. Thanks.

I agree mutations are not random, but are in fact engineered. DNA is a fantastically sophisticated and elegant communication protocol. It has error correction, redundancy, self-healing characteristics, repair mechanisms, and an amazing, adaptive, evolutionary algorithm.

If your interested, investigate this powerful argument here..

CosmicfingerprintsDOTcom

[themadhair]

I would just like to say that I think your website is the biggest crock of shit Ive browsed today. And Ive browsed some awful sites today. For example, how braindead does someone have to be to not understand how information theory demands an increase of information in a selective environment?? This is basic fucking maths. And Perry Marshall got completely fucking owned in that IIDB thread the dude is simply too ignorant to realise it.

[XxXOnimaruXxX]

who says the creation and evolution don't go hand and hand?

[themadhair]

One, evolution, is an observed phenomenon explained by evolutionary theory, which in turn is a coherent framework based upon experimental evidence, verified predictions and supported by over 150 years of research in the biological sciences.

The second, creation, is based on absolutely nothing bar the decree of some ancient books perceived by some to be holy and supported by contrived first cause & teleological arguments.

I dont see how they go hand in hand.

[starlogic99]

i don't understand this.

[themadhair]

Which part?

[ProcInc]

The last half reminds me of "Making of the Fittest" by SB Carroll

[DawsonBriggs]

What a boring AMV.

[GBart]

Here's my impression of Creationism:

"if earth is round y dont people fall off of australia???? sceintists r dum."

[flamablesteve]

HAHAHHA, take that atheists!

PROOF the earth is flat. LOL PWNED

[YogzDaBeatChild]

check mate you godless assholes. lol.

[dustindizzle]

LOL not random hahhhahahaahahhaahaan this actually made me laugh wow....

[themadhair]

Care to substantiate your misunderstanding?

[brad0192837465]

i like your views not that my opinion actually means much being a 16 year old.

[themadhair]

"Are they suggesting that, because the coding is similar to coding for something else, it must have derrived from it?"

The coding is more than similar. Thousands of base pairs matching up is more than similar. Having the same thing occur in multiple unrelated fish is more than mere similarity.

"Why assume the earlier DNA was junk?"

The earlier DNA wasn't even present to begin with. The question of whether or not the DNA was junk after it arose is still an open question.

[themadhair]

@ johnpaulwinters

Just back from Canada so here goes again.

"But I am still not convinced that mutations in junk DNA can just happen to start producing antifreeze when needed."

Evolution doesn't work that way. You are assuming that the current outcome was the only one -- evolution doesn't care about the outcome, it only selects an outcome that works. Evolution shot an arrow at a barn door. You are painting a target around that arrow and trying to claim it was too improbable.

[themadhair]

It still seem much more likely (Occam razor) the gene was always there."

Read the linked paper (remove the spaces -- if you know of a way to stop YT inserting said spaces then please tell me). When you understand the paper then you will understand why you have just butchered Occam's razor. The genetic code contains the markers that undeniably point to the AFGP gene's origin. The theory of evolution is merely the explanation thereof.

[themadhair]

"There is no sample of earlier DNA. Who's to say it always coded for AFGP?"

Read the paper and google 'comparative genetics'.

"Which is more likely..." That the fish, slowly arose from small gradual evolutionary processes or was magiced spontaneously into existence? The probability argument really does stand up here and is actually irrelevant -- if the evidence in the genome points to an evolutionary origin then science has to take that at face value regardless of philosophic considerations.

[themadhair]

"produced exactly the proteins"

There was a fair amount of junk created along with the AFGP gene so this point is a bit moot.

"Why would you feel the need to point that out instead of addressing the fact that their calculations were based on what we now know are high estimates?"

Their estimates were conservative. If you have a flaw in the methodology then I would love to hear it, but we both know that your lack of biological knowledge prevents that.

[themadhair]

@ johnpaulwinters

"AFGP gene was always there."

How about either reading the paper linked to on this which says you are wrong or actually cite some evidence to the contrary.

"the probability of a random stretch of DNA somehow becoming a functional gene is very low if not nil."

This is true -- but DNA is MASSIVE. When it rains the probability of any particular rain drop hitting you is stupefyingly low -- but you still get wet. Think about it.

[themadhair]

"148 in the *junk* region. And most of the 2 in the coding region would be silent."

Junk DNA can undergo mutations that can make a segment of it become active -- again the AFGP gene.

"They used 7 billion base pairs when each human has 3."

???????? Do I really have to explain that humans have four types of base pairs but BILLIONS of copies of each????? What is so hard about getting this concept?

"You can verify my numbers quickly right now."

Your numbers aren't the problem -- your logic is.

[themadhair]

"They used 70,000 genes, when we have only 20-25k."

"And their study specifically states that they were only concerned with the pseudogenes."

Every segment of DNA is a potential gene under mutation. The reason they were concerned with pseudogenes is because mutations in active genes tend to be deleterious, but mutations in pseudogenes are, for the most part neutral, and every so often some of these pseudogenes become active - hence the focus of this paper.

[johnpaulwinters]

>Every segment of DNA is a potential gene under mutation. The reason they were concerned with pseudogenes is because mutations in active genes tend to be deleterious..

Ok. I get your point.

But I am still not convinced that mutations in junk DNA can just happen to start producing antifreeze when needed. It still seem much more likely (Occam razor) the gene was always there.

[johnpaulwinters]

>Junk DNA can undergo mutations that can make a segment of it become active..AFGP

There is no sample of earlier DNA. Who's to say it always coded for AFGP?

Which is more likely, the fish always had the gene, or the junk DNA gradually produced the gene in a series of unrelated steps which by a coincidence produced exactly the proteins need to keep the bodily fluids from freezing?

[johnpaulwinters]

>Do I really have to explain that humans have four types of base pairs but BILLIONS of copies of each????? What is so hard about getting this concept?

Why would you feel the need to point that out instead of addressing the fact that their calculations were based on what we now know are high estimates?

[johnpaulwinters]

>How about either reading the paper..

The links are broken where they have spaces, but I was able to find the paper.

In the first sentence of the paper, the authors admit they don't know HOW what they are about to present happened.

Are they suggesting that, because the coding is similar to coding for something else, it must have derrived from it? That isn't random mutation.

Why assume the earlier DNA was junk?

[johnpaulwinters]

I found some glaring problems in the research "Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans" Nachmana and Crowella

The numbers they used were wrong. I'm out of time, but an example is where they say "The human genome contains 70,000 genes".

Well, it doesn't. The number is 20-25k.

This, coupled with the erroneous 7 billion base pairs I spotted earlier makes the results neigh worthless.

[themadhair]

"You est. we have 175 mutations that neither of our parents had, but you ignore the vast regions of junk DNA."

Junk DNA can, under a mutation, cause a new beneficial trait to occur. The AFGP gene is an example. So this renders this point moot for starters.

"Well, it doesn't. The number is 20-25k."

Irrelevant -- mutations rates are dependant on base pairs.

"which is now said to be 6 billion"

That still leaves 150 mutations per generation by your own count.

[johnpaulwinters]

>Junk DNA can cause a new beneficial trait..

AFGP gene was always there.

The guy who speculated this had no explaination how. He did admit:

"the probability of a random stretch of DNA somehow becoming a functional gene is very low if not nil."

-Cheng

Soc for Experimental Bio

April 4, 2006

>That still leaves 150 mutations per generation by your own count.

148 in the *junk* region. And most of the 2 in the coding region would be silent.

[themadhair]

Here is a key point you have missed -- the paper in getting an estimate was being conservative in its methods, and as a result the 175 is likely to be a minimum.

Do you actually have a problem with the methods used? Or just the result?

[johnpaulwinters]

>the paper in getting an estimate was being conservative

I showed that they weren't conservative. They used 7 billion base pairs when each human has 3. They used 70,000 genes, when we have only 20-25k.

You can verify my numbers quickly right now.

Their research was pre-human genome project, and much has been learned since 2000.

[johnpaulwinters]

And their study specifically states that they were only concerned with the pseudogenes.

[johnpaulwinters]

You est. we have 175 mutations that neither of our parents had, but you ignore the vast regions of junk DNA. In fact the protein-coding DNA (genes) makes up only 1.5%.

Also, your citation used the higher diploid genome estimate of 7 billion base pairs, which is now said to be 6 billion.

6/7(175)=150 total mutations

150(1.5%)=2.25 gene mutations

That makes 2.25 gene mutations per generation.

That would put your number at 7,777% off.

[gentletouch1]

I for one like the music. I don't know what is being sung, but it has a certain appeal to it.

[iamaloserandisuck]

Interesting video, but what where you thinking when you chose that music? Did you intend to torture your audience as much as possible?

[themadhair]

Only clip I had that was the correct length. I am a massive Uematsu so I blinded on that front.