Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

The point being that a bridge (in function) can be found that was not designed by human hands (like a tree falling over a river), that's it. That was the challenge Default_Dave laid out. And it was answered. Now he wants to add another caveat to keep that conundrum alive in his head.

That is not the challenge I laid out.

The challenge is ordered/not chance compared to random/chance.

Is your misrepresenting my argument deliberate on your part or accidental?

--Dave

 

[noguru]

That is not the challenge I laid out.

The challenge is ordered/not chance compared to random/chance.

Is your misrepresenting my argument deliberate on your part or accidental?

--Dave

I have explained to you several times now. Genetic variation seems to be the random/chance part. Natural selection/reproductive advantage is the nonrandom/nonchance part. The more offspring produced the more we see that characteristic in future generations. That is not a random thing, it is decided by the reproductive success. This makes the whole process stochastic, not completely random.

But of course as I pointed out earlier, most single genetic variations are neutral in regard to reproductive advantage. Would you like me to repeat that post here?

Your argument is deliberately misleading in regard to the reality. Therefore I will correct it every time you use it.

 

[Tyrathca]

A fallen tree, regardless where it falls is not like a bridge.

You don't go into the bush much do you?

Looks like it performs the same function as a bridge (just at a different scale). So it is still "useful" to animals.

A fallen tree would be like a fallen bridge in a proper analogy.

Ummm no. You can't cross a fallen bridge typically.

Many trees would have to fall in proper place in order to be properly compared to a bridge.

Ummm no....

one tree is all that is needed

Mutations are like fallen trees the product of chance, bridges are not like fallen trees they are not the product of chance. Are we like fallen trees or like bridges?

So fallen trees aren't designed because..... they aren't human bridges? But mutations are designed because they are like human bridges???? Why human bridges?

Personally I don't think the above looks much like a human bridge



But ytpically you fail to see the point. Your argument was that because the mutations are useful they therefore have purpose and therefore can't be based on chance and therefore must be design. But falling trees can form useful bridges for organisms too by chance yet you do not call them purposeful or designed. Did you not notice I took your argument and essentially only replaced mutations with falling trees?

 

[noguru]

You don't go into the bush much do you?

Looks like it performs the same function as a bridge (just at a different scale). So it is still "useful" to animals.

Ummm no. You can't cross a fallen bridge typically.
Ummm no....

one tree is all that is needed

So fallen trees aren't designed because..... they aren't human bridges? But mutations are designed because they are like human bridges???? Why human bridges?

Personally I don't think the above looks much like a human bridge



But ytpically you fail to see the point. Your argument was that because the mutations are useful they therefore have purpose and therefore can't be based on chance and therefore must be design. But falling trees can form useful bridges for organisms too by chance yet you do not call them purposeful or designed. Did you not notice I took your argument and essentially only replaced mutations with falling trees?

This point was made quite clearly earlier, IMO. But then Dave added the caveat of "Well I don't see as 'many' fallen trees as I see biological organisms or man made bridges." He chose to leave out natural biological reproduction/human production in that equation.

 

[noguru]

Default_Dave I love it when you get me to review this material for you. Because this is beneficial for the people who are actually paying attention. The one's that don't pay attention make their own bed.

 

[alwight]

And you are saying a mutation that works best in relation to environment and producing more offspring just happens to appear in the genetic code by chance.

Surely Dave even you must concede that in a reasonably diverse group of individuals one or two of them would be the better suited for a given situation than the others. Natural selection simply picks the best suited from whatever is available.

And I said that any mutation that does this as opposed to all other mutations that don't would serve a purpose and that would negate purposeless chance for that particular mutation.

Why must you always presume a purpose has to be involved? If the previous generation managed to produce offspring in a given environment but one current individual by chance was slightly better suited than its parents, siblings and cousins, then it would be more likely to successfully produce more offspring with that same beneficial trait than they would.
Whatever the beneficial trait was would be enhanced through NS with each new brood until all the others either acquired the same trait by perhaps interbreeding or they simply perished.

What is the ratio of helpful mutations to harmful mutations?

Is this where statistics and ratios are used to obfuscate and argue your personal incredulity Dave?
Maybe only one beneficial mutation or genetic variation out of millions of neutral or harmful ones would be selected for, I don't know, and perhaps all it needs.
All of humanity is genetically supposed to be linked to only one unknown woman, all the others have simply fallen by the wayside, to coin a phrase.

I would suppose you would agree that we did not go from the brain size of a common ancestor to apes over night. That process would have required many mutations, yes. You think the brain of that creature mutated by chance mutations into the brain we have today? Is our thinking merely the result of the chance appearance of mutation?

--Dave

I simply think that the smarter ones had an edge Dave and that they produced more offspring with their "smarter" genes.

 

[alwight]

Is there no difference in your thinking between a "land bridge" and a "man made bridge"?

--Dave

A bridge is whatever it takes that link two things together, even a musical bridge, take me to the bridge Dave.

 

[bybee]

A bridge is whatever it takes that link two things together, even a musical bridge, take me to the bridge Dave.

I suppose we can't take you to a "Leader"?

 

[noguru]

A bridge is whatever it takes that link two things together, even a musical bridge, take me to the bridge Dave.

I think Dave is missing a few bridges in his head.

That is on the Album "Houses of the Holy" by Led Zeppelin.

 

[noguru]

I suppose we can't take you to a "Leader"?

I guess it depends on who that "leader" really is.

 

[bybee]

The point being that a bridge (in function) can be found that was not designed by human hands (like a tree falling over a river), that's it. That was the challenge Default_Dave laid out. And it was answered. Now he wants to add another caveat to keep that conundrum alive in his head.

I would agree that function will define a thing.

 

[alwight]

It just might depend on who is doing the constructing?

The point is that a bridge is still a bridge whether there was design and intent involved or not.

 

[noguru]

I would agree that function will define a thing.

I think we should discover how God did these things, and not try to force human standards of design on His creation.

 

[bybee]

I guess it depends on who that "leader" really is.

Well "really" may be actual or it may be situational, grounded or floating?

 

[noguru]

Well "really" may be actual or it may be situational, grounded or floating?

Yep, and what objective criteria do you use to determine if something is "grounded" or "floating", might the two be able to coexist and be part of a larger reality? Or is reality, in your mind, only that which is "grounded"?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I have explained to you several times now. Genetic variation seems to be the random/chance part. Natural selection/reproductive advantage is the nonrandom/nonchance part. The more offspring produced the more we see that characteristic in future generations. That is not a random thing, it is decided by the reproductive success. This makes the whole process stochastic, not completely random.

But of course as I pointed out earlier, most single genetic variations are neutral in regard to reproductive advantage. Would you like me to repeat that post here?

Your argument is deliberately misleading in regard to the reality. Therefore I will correct it every time you use it.

This is what I said at the outset in post #2576

Can we say that "useful information" does evolve by chance mutations? If I were to agree, for the sake of argument, that nature is selective, any mutation that occurs without purpose/chance would still fulfill a purpose which is a contradiction. It would be arguing that chance mutations serve a purpose. Any mutation that serves a purpose would not be by chance, and if not by chance then by design.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

This is what I said at the outset in post #2576

Can we say that "useful information" does evolve by chance mutations? If I were to agree, for the sake of argument, that nature is selective, any mutation that occurs without purpose/chance would still fulfill a purpose which is a contradiction. It would be arguing that chance mutations serve a purpose. Any mutation that serves a purpose would not be by chance, and if not by chance then by design.

--Dave

'Purpose' presupposes a design. A better way to phrase it would be 'the mutation functions' in a way that increases survival, in the same way that a fallen tree can function as a bridge without any purposing.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You don't go into the bush much do you?

Looks like it performs the same function as a bridge (just at a different scale). So it is still "useful" to animals.

Ummm no. You can't cross a fallen bridge typically.
Ummm no....

one tree is all that is needed

So fallen trees aren't designed because..... they aren't human bridges? But mutations are designed because they are like human bridges???? Why human bridges?

Personally I don't think the above looks much like a human bridge

But ytpically you fail to see the point. Your argument was that because the mutations are useful they therefore have purpose and therefore can't be based on chance and therefore must be design. But falling trees can form useful bridges for organisms too by chance yet you do not call them purposeful or designed. Did you not notice I took your argument and essentially only replaced mutations with falling trees?

I had already done that.

Falling trees can no more produce a bridge any more than chance mutations can produce the human brain.

I put a picture of what I meant by "bridge", the designed type.

The human brain is more like a "bridge" that I described and not like a bunch of randomly fallen trees.

I used a bridge and you used a tree as if they are the same thing. A man made bridge is not a tree.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Default_Dave I love it when you get me to review this material for you. Because this is beneficial for the people who are actually paying attention. The one's that don't pay attention make their own bed.

I'm glad you're here as well.

--Dave

 

[Silent Hunter]

A man made bridge is not a tree.

. . . but a fallen tree can be a bridge. You don't go for walks in the wood much . . . do you Dave?