Explain this, creationists...a Liger!

[fishbob]

Ham:

evolution by random chance is not logically sustainable.
.............
fishy: Define random chance. Explain why the evolution of life per Darwinianism of any flavor is not at heart guided solely by it.

What? Didja change your mind or are you ignoring the explanation? Not even a 'thank you'?

 

[hammegk]

Ham - The process of evolution is sequential. Mutations are produced one at at time, in a single organism within a species. The mutation may be harmful, have no effect, or may be beneficial. If beneficial or no-effect, that organism is more likely to reproduce, passing that mutation into the general population of the species. The species includes millions of individuals, the process is continuous, but sequential. Chance certainly plays a part in the process, but selection for survival also plays a part, and mitigates some of the randomness out of the process.

Didn't mean to ignore you; squeaky wheels always get greased first. Yes, thanks for responding.

You hew to the party line, but a couple thoughts. How "sequential" was the Cambrian explosion? And, does "mitigating some of the randomness" actually remove randomness as a major -- if not the major -- factor? I say no.

BTW, we're arguing at the level of Wittgensteinian noise.

 

[AWPrime]

And, does "mitigating some of the randomness" actually remove randomness as a major -- if not the major -- factor? I say no.

As I see it it, if you combine all the factors; scale, time and enviroments.
They would remove the randomness as a factor.

 

[hammegk]

As I see it it, if you combine all the factors; scale, time and enviroments.
They would remove the randomness as a factor.

And I'd say randomness has no relationship to time or scale, and that environment vis-a-vis any specific mutation is only random chance.

 

[AWPrime]

An example for my case:


A subject in generation A has a bad mutation. But through dumbluck he passes his genes on.

However any of his decendents with the bad mutation still need the same dumbluck to pass on their genes. And that becomes less likely over more generations.

 

[hammegk]

The goodness or badness (i.e. local viability) of an intraspecies mutation doesn't seem especially relevant. We are looking for a speciation event. Survival is obviously necessary, but why sufficient?

 

[AWPrime]

The goodness or badness (i.e. local viability) of an intraspecies mutation doesn't seem especially relevant. We are looking for a speciation event. Survival is obviously necessary, but why sufficient?

Your question is not very clear. If I am correct you are asking what would cause a 'new species' to be formed.?

 

[hammegk]

Your question is not very clear. If I am correct you are asking what would cause a 'new species' to be formed.?

Ignoring the problem (from OP & onwards) about what actually constitutes change sufficient to be accepted (by the average person) as "obvious macroevolution" rather than microevolution, yes.

 

[fishbob]

Ham:

How "sequential" was the Cambrian explosion? And, does "mitigating some of the randomness" actually remove randomness as a major -- if not the major -- factor? I say no.

One year after another for 10 - 15 million years is quite a sequence.

The process includes a random genetic shakeup followed by selection for survival followed by more random genetic shakeup followed by more selection for survival. Kind of like panning for gold - scoop up a mass of dirt - what winds up in your pan is there by chance. Add water and swirl, rinse and repeat until the dirt is gone, and the gold is left at the bottom - selected by natural processes.

You are using the standard creationist terminology here - Cambrian Explosion, macroevolution, random chance - are you messing with me?

 

[Dr Adequate]

If you find it gibble, why respond? Afraid you might be mistaken?

Am I engaging in debate with you because I'm "afraid I might be mistaken"? What a bizarre piece of pseudopsychology. I'm telling you it's gibble because it's gibble, and it stands between you and an accurate picture of science.

You have much of interest to contribute in general, and I look forward to your posts. BTW, my real interest is self-education, not Dr. A education.

For you to try to communicate your ideas to me is probably a lot more educational for you than it is for me. I'm not learning anything yet, whereas you're learning that some of your ideas lack clarity.

I asked you a few questions. Try an answer, ask a question I can try to answer, or at least in this thread I suspect we are done. As we stand, I have no idea how to answer your question "How would you disprove speciation from ontological premises?; at the moment, to me, it is of the class "define the Universe & give 3 examples".

Right. I think we'd better stick to a scientific discussion of evolution. Hold the philosophy 'til you've worked out what it is.

Regurgitating: To begin, please define where non-life (material) ends and life begins. Hint: you can't do so in any defensible way.

That's right! No-one can! Is a prion alive? Is a virus? Where can we draw the line between "life" and "chemicals which given the right environment cause their own synthesis". We can't! But why you think this is an argument against science is beyond me. Can you explain?

But, please, go ahead & demonstrate my opinion that the energy field(s) that are our universe are not also "alive/sentient/aware-of-surroundings". Strings? Quarks? Bosons? what do you think?

You want me to demonstrate your opinion?

Are energy fields conscious? Why on earth should we think, say, electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force are conscious? Any more than we should suppose a brick to be conscious? What makes a photon or a gluon different from a brick?

Examine II's boulder-rolling question in a little more depth than "it doesn't have a brain".

What is "II's boulder-rolling question"? You've gone cryptic on me again.

 

[AWPrime]

Ham: One year after another for 10 - 15 million years is quite a sequence.

The process includes a random genetic shakeup followed by selection for survival followed by more random genetic shakeup followed by more selection for survival. Kind of like panning for gold - scoop up a mass of dirt - what winds up in your pan is there by chance. Add water and swirl, rinse and repeat until the dirt is gone, and the gold is left at the bottom - selected by natural processes.

What he said.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I'll assume you are joking.

I'll still assume you haven't spotted your schoolboy howler.

Apparently at least 14 billion; some believe we are approaching midpoint with, iirc, 8 previous expansions/contractions completed -- so they are at 240 billion +-.

Ah, ha. Progress. Though you present a curiously dogmatic and literal layman's interpretation of whatever surrounded/preceded the Big Bang. How do we know it was just the 8, not 7, 9 or a million? Has someone located the BigBang-o-Meter that's been doing the counting?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Ignoring the problem (from OP & onwards) about what actually constitutes change sufficient to be accepted (by the average person) as "obvious macroevolution" rather than microevolution, yes.

Let's forget the average person. How much change do you need to have shown to you: see I have a test tube in my hands- in goes a mouse, out pops an elephant. Now that might be tricky, however, you have already been directed to some pretty good examples of speciation that prove the point, but just because you personally can't convinced by anything short of a mouse/elephant transition doesn't mean that the point has not been adequately demonstrated. That's back to the Creationists' tactic of appeal to personal ignorance: "I don't understand your proof, so your proof is invalid" Frankly, it hardly matters whether you describe yourself as a Creationist, if you advance their failed arguments they are just as firmly rebutted for you as for them.

edited for grammar

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

What he said.

but I'd like to add another ingredient to the mixture: the readily demonstrable properties of self-organisation that are present in matter, both animate and inanimate.

 

[hammegk]

One year after another for 10 - 15 million years is quite a sequence.

Fish, iirc the results at maximum speciation, and major dieoff, don't fit sequencing particularly well (ok, random sequential selection, I suppose).

Thinking a bit more, the only thing sequential actually means is that abiogenesis did not occur many times. Unbeknownst to me until recently, Creationists defined in the early 40s (and continue to re-define) the term that has some implication here: baramin.

You are using the standard creationist terminology here - Cambrian Explosion, macroevolution, random chance - are you messing with me?

Not as such. We both use such words as are available to us.

I'll still assume you haven't spotted your schoolboy howler.

I have not. Please enlighten me in this regard.

.... in goes a mouse, out pops an elephant. Now that might be tricky, however, you have already been directed to some pretty good examples of speciation that prove the point, but just because you personally can't convinced by anything short of a mouse/elephant transition doesn't mean that the point has not been adequately demonstrated.

What you and many others find adequate is what I question. Remember that I stipulate -- given 100% materialism to work with, and given the formation of life itself from non-life -- evolution is a great theory.

BTW, I understand the proof just fine, I just don't accord it the same validity as I do validation of a theorem that posits, say, electron charge is between 0.9999999 and 1.000001 ev.

but I'd like to add another ingredient to the mixture: the readily demonstrable properties of self-organisation that are present in matter, both animate and inanimate.

What is animate matter (that is the question, in one sense)?

The quark-gluon plasma demonstrated properties of self-organization. Now what? Does that address ontology?

I'm telling you it's gibble because it's gibble, and it stands between you and an accurate picture of science.

Unfortunately for the truth-value of that, you don't know what my picture of science is, or is not.

That's right! No-one can! Is a prion alive? Is a virus? Where can we draw the line between "life" and "chemicals which given the right environment cause their own synthesis". We can't! But why you think this is an argument against science is beyond me. Can you explain?

I don't use it as an argument against science. Science does not and cannot answer an ontological supposition.

Are energy fields conscious? Why on earth should we think, say, electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force are conscious? Any more than we should suppose a brick to be conscious? What makes a photon or a gluon different from a brick?

Questions that science -- unfortunately -- cannot address.

What is "II's boulder-rolling question"? You've gone cryptic on me again

Perhaps. It was a test for understanding of your involvement in a question that has been discussed on JREF for many many months prior to your arrival, Dr.A.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Unfortunately for the truth-value of that, you don't know what my picture of science is, or is not.

Your picture of science appears to involve dismissing speciation and Darwinism. Am I right? If not, what are we discussing? If so, then I do in fact know that your philosophical gibble is obscuring your view of science.

I don't use it as an argument against science. Science does not and cannot answer an ontological supposition.

Or vice-versa. So if you find this question irrelevant to science, which is what we're discussing, why did you raise the question?

Questions that science -- unfortunately -- cannot address.

It can. The answers are: "we shouldn't" and "they aren't".

Perhaps. It was a test for understanding of your involvement in a question that has been discussed on JREF for many many months prior to your arrival, Dr.A.

A moment's thought would have told you that my involvement in a question discussed prior to my arival was absolutely zero.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I have not. Please enlighten me in this regard.

It's the anthropic principle.

What you and many others find adequate is what I question. Remember that I stipulate -- given 100% materialism to work with, and given the formation of life itself from non-life -- evolution is a great theory.

You are being internally inconsistent. Biogenesis and evolution are not the same thing, though obviously they are connected. You have been arguing against evolution in toto, claiming that speciation cannot be shown at all.

You can't now make the validity of evolution contingent on your ideas of biogenesis. Evolution is a demonstrably true process both in the world around us now and in the fossil record. You can't now say that evolution is a "great theory", but only provided that life had a non-rational origin in the first place. If the patent truth of evolution causes you a problem with your ideas as to life's origins then it's those ideas that need adjusting not evolution.

How about you state your propositions clearly? If evolution does not happen, then did all species appear fully formed out of thin air?

 

[hammegk]

Your picture of science appears to involve dismissing speciation and Darwinism. Am I right? If not, what are we discussing? If so, then I do in fact know that your philosophical gibble is obscuring your view of science.

I've stated, given the logical worldview that I'd call 100% materialism, and given the existence of the first lifeform, Darwinism et al is the best theory we have, but even in that case, results to date do not demonstrate as fact any hypothesized macroevolution event. Intraspecies mutation is a fact.

A moment's thought would have told you that my involvement in a question discussed prior to my arival was absolutely zero.

A moment's thought told me the subject was broached in JREF since your arrival.

It is another statement of the challenge separating life(consciousness) from non-life. Why are you convinced you have any more choice in what you do than does the rolling boulder -- its energy sources being limited to gravity, friction, etc. for times of limited duration.

And no, I will never answer "How would you disprove speciation from ontological premises?" to anyone's satisfaction. I hope to get to a place where you at least consider the question of ontology valid in a discussion of evolution.

It's the anthropic principle.

My error. Even then, some communication between us occured. Neat comment on the muscly man universe ...

And, you know some well-read schoolboys if that's an error they might make.

You can't now make the validity of evolution contingent on your ideas of biogenesis. Evolution is a demonstrably true process both in the world around us now and in the fossil record.

Nor do I. I would agree that evolution has not been falsified by any studies of mutation (including at dna level), nor the fossil record.

You can't now say that evolution is a "great theory", but only provided that life had a non-rational origin in the first place.

Non-rational is your wording, not mine. I only stated unequivocably (rather than leaving the assumption tacit as courses seem to) that assuming the factualness of evolution does not address any mechanism of abiogenesis.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Agreed.

Now I ask if you deem "posit" as an indication of a "fact"?

In the case of early bird evolution case I think that the problem isn't a paucity of evidence, it's that there's too much of it, more coming, and a lot of it doesn't particularly make sense. It's actually a lot like early mammal evolution in that way, there are a few frustrating gaps, but the part that's missing is fairly easy to figure out. It's the stuff we do have that's often baffling.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I only stated unequivocably (rather than leaving the assumption tacit as courses seem to) that assuming the factualness of evolution does not address any mechanism of abiogenesis.

The alleged tacitness of that assumption is an assertion confined to creationist propaganda. Any one who knows any science knows that there are two rather separate, though linked, questions: origin of life and evolution of life.

I have still not seen you propose an alternative to evolution that can be tested against evidence, so what is it? If your only opinion is that you personally find the evidence for evolution unconvincing then that's more your problem than mine, I know many people who believe in self-evidently false ideas in spite of clear evidence to the contrary that they either will not, or cannot, understand. Give us your alternative to evolution and let's test it against the evidence.