The occurence of evolution is NOT random.

Be sure to copy the entire links as YouTube breaks some of them.

Mutation rate in humans:
(http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/156/1/297.pdf)
Satellite orbit evolution:
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1437.html)
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/10/011016070234.htm)
Some examples of positive mutations in humans:
(http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html)
Papers on gene duplication:
(http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/151/4/1531.pdf)
(http://www.embl-heidelberg.de/~raes/Gene%20duplications%20the%20evolution%20of%­20novel%20gene%20functions%20and%20detecting%20functional%20divergence%20of%20du­plicates%20in%20silico_AppliedBioinformatics2003_RaesVandePeer.pdf)
The evolution of AFGP via gene duplication:
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/8/3485.pdf)
Webpage with many links on increases in genetic information:
(http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm)
Buy your corpses here:
(http://www.distefano.com/)

Song - Suteki De Na

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Evolution
• chance
• creationism
• random
• genetic
• mutation
• algorithm
• increase
• information

[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]

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.

[GBart]

Here's my impression of Creationism:

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[sketchbook1]

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

[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 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" 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.

[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.