Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173361 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114329 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what evolution says but if the mutations are because of environmental effects then in a sense they are not random since they are producing what is needed other wise producing a trait for survival reasons caused by the environment factors..
Part of the problem here is the word 'random'. As far as I can see, it means very different things to different people.

For example, when you throw a pair of dice, the end result of the dice is determined by the properties of the dice, the friction of the table, the air currents, and a host of other variables. But the result could, in theory, be predicted by a very fast calculation on these parameters after the throw and before the dice stop. And yet, we say that the result of the dice is random.

The *reason* we say the result is random is that very small changes in initial conditions (force of the throw, angle of rebound, direction of air current, etc) can lead to a different final result. In other words, the result has sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

The same happens with mutations. yes, everyone has some mutation. But *which* mutations does any given person have? That will depend on whether a cosmic ray deposited its energy on one part of the DNA molecule or on the protein nearby. Or whether a particular chemical managed to diffuse into a particular cell and which, exact rung of the DNA ladder it interacted with. Even a millimeter difference in position of the animal could lead to a very different mutation.

So, once again, the specific mutations that are produced have a very high dependence on initial conditions, including position of the individual, air currents, diffusion, etc. For exactly the same reason that we say that the result of a throw of dice is random, the specific mutations an individual has are random.

We can go further, suppose that we throw a pair of dice every hour and record the results. The sequence of scores will be a random sequence. But we have the non-random assumption that we throw the dice every hour. We can go further and use the laws of probability to say that approximately 1/6 of the throws of the dice will add to be 7 and 1/36 will add to be 12. There is some variance in these numbers in any given run of scores, but the long-term, overall average is regular in this way.

In the same way, the individual mutations are random, but each person is likely to have 150 mutations. Exactly which ones cannot be determined except through an very detailed analysis of position, air currents, etc, but the average over a large population will be regular in many ways.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114330 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
OK another question: to my knowledge every person born has 150 or more mutations. Now mutations happen to everyone and that is a fact. Should it not be said the "random effects” of mutations (everyone experiences mutations) are what are responsible for the new traits instead of just saying "random mutations" are what is responsible? We really don’t even know what mutations causes what trait/effect or how it even really works. In my opinion! After all it is the random effect of the mutation not the mutation itself. <<<(if that makes sense to anyone)
No, for each mutation, the effect is pretty well determined. The issue is *which* mutations any particular person will have. Two different people are very unlikely to have exactly the same collection of mutations. So, it really is having the effects of random mutations instead of the random effects of mutations.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114331 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is born with mutations, so in a sense they are not random things. It is the effect of the mutation that is random.
No, the specific mutations are random. Which specific mutations an individual will have is random. But every individual will have *some* mutations. The mutations are random things. Given a specific mutation, the effect is NOT random. For example the mutation that causes sickle-cell disease is a very specific mutation on the gene for hemoglobin. Given that mutation, sickle-cell disease is the result. But whether that mutation arises or not is a random thing.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114332 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is what I am saying. If 10 people have the same said mutation but the changes/variation it causes is different for them, then it is not a random mutation, it is a random effect of the mutation.
But that isn't what actually happens in practice. Different people tend to have different mutations. All those with the same mutation are subject to the same effects of that mutation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114333 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
To put it the best way I can:
These random mutations are caused by environmental factors to aid in survival.
Stop right there. They are NOT produced by the environment to aid survival. The causes of the mutations have nothing at all to do with the survival aspects of the resulting mutations. The two aspects are uncorrelated.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#114335 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop right there. They are NOT produced by the environment to aid survival. The causes of the mutations have nothing at all to do with the survival aspects of the resulting mutations. The two aspects are uncorrelated.
As I have said I do a lot of reading and in every article I have ever read they mention the environment influence of mutations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/env...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Variat...

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#114336 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, for each mutation, the effect is pretty well determined. The issue is *which* mutations any particular person will have. Two different people are very unlikely to have exactly the same collection of mutations. So, it really is having the effects of random mutations instead of the random effects of mutations.
Ok no two individuals have the same mutations. So are you saying that in a population, different mutations can cause the same evolution of the population? Like you can get 100 by adding up several different numbers, ie different mutations in different individuals can still lead up to the same changes in the population?.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#114337 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Part of the problem here is the word 'random'. As far as I can see, it means very different things to different people.
For example, when you throw a pair of dice, the end result of the dice is determined by the properties of the dice, the friction of the table, the air currents, and a host of other variables. But the result could, in theory, be predicted by a very fast calculation on these parameters after the throw and before the dice stop. And yet, we say that the result of the dice is random.
The *reason* we say the result is random is that very small changes in initial conditions (force of the throw, angle of rebound, direction of air current, etc) can lead to a different final result. In other words, the result has sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
The same happens with mutations. yes, everyone has some mutation. But *which* mutations does any given person have? That will depend on whether a cosmic ray deposited its energy on one part of the DNA molecule or on the protein nearby. Or whether a particular chemical managed to diffuse into a particular cell and which, exact rung of the DNA ladder it interacted with. Even a millimeter difference in position of the animal could lead to a very different mutation.
So, once again, the specific mutations that are produced have a very high dependence on initial conditions, including position of the individual, air currents, diffusion, etc. For exactly the same reason that we say that the result of a throw of dice is random, the specific mutations an individual has are random.
We can go further, suppose that we throw a pair of dice every hour and record the results. The sequence of scores will be a random sequence. But we have the non-random assumption that we throw the dice every hour. We can go further and use the laws of probability to say that approximately 1/6 of the throws of the dice will add to be 7 and 1/36 will add to be 12. There is some variance in these numbers in any given run of scores, but the long-term, overall average is regular in this way.
In the same way, the individual mutations are random, but each person is likely to have 150 mutations. Exactly which ones cannot be determined except through an very detailed analysis of position, air currents, etc, but the average over a large population will be regular in many ways.
On your dice analogy. the blank dice will always give the same roll, now add numbers (the effect of the roll) and it becomes random. That is why I ask/say the mutation is not random, they happen all the time and are influenced by environmental factors. It is the effect of the mutation that is random for it seems that the effects of a mutation differ for each individual.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#114338 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But that isn't what actually happens in practice. Different people tend to have different mutations. All those with the same mutation are subject to the same effects of that mutation.
You said in a earlier post that no 2 will have the exact mutations so again it seems that different mutations in individuals can lead to the same outcome/effect of the different mutations.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114339 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with deductive reasoning is that the starting assumptions for the reasoning must be correct. If they are not, the result of the deduction may be wrong. Even in the example you used, we have to start from known laws of physics and *speculate* about the conditions in the center of the earth. These speculations are still subject to the requirement that they be consistent...
I agree.
But my interest is in the point where a phenomena is real, yet cannot be observed nor tested.
How do we treat such cases?
Just conclude that since we cant detect and measure them they are of questionable value?
Or do we examine our methods to find the primary element which makes it reliable, and try to apply it in investigating those phenomena?
polymath257 wrote:
While not having an experiment to test or validate an idea *now* is not enough to say an idea is meaningless, the absence of even a theoretical way to test or verify an idea *is* enough to say that the idea is not scientific. Any idea that describes reality *must* be testable in some form.
<quoted text>
Outstanding!
But by what principle or standard available to us can we measure the "real"?
And based on what will we be able to conclude on any degree of reality of anything?
polymath257 wrote:
And, once again, to begin to use deductive reasoning, you must have general axioms that are reliable and can be used in the situations where the deduction is applied. if the general rules are not correct, then errors can arise.
<quoted text>
Ah.
But does deductive reasoning indeed require an "axiom"?
It is the conclusion which verifies the premises in any line of logic; such that a conclusion is valid even if the premises describe that which has no existence.
I would suggest that it is the will to "have general axioms" (I admit science will lead to such), that leads us to form hasty generalizations.
I prefer to rely on the direct relationship between what is postulated and what is concluded to determine the validity of a deduction; because I suspect that it is a mistake to take for granted that any "axiom" is reliable.
polymath257 wrote:
And *all* thought experiments in the sciences must subsequently be tested by observations to determine whether the assumptions of the thought experiment are correct. The problem is that correct reasoning from incorrect principles will lead to incorrect conclusions.
I agree.
Yet the implications of any assumption (or the absence of implications) will be observable in the system for which the assumption is made.
For example:
If I assume that wind was blowing heavily before I arrived at a place, there will be signs that wind blew heavily... etc etc.
But what happens at the point where we are performing the thought experiment on something for which only its effect on the world can be observed; and the thing itself cannot be detected by the senses?
Do we disregard these phenomena as unreal, meaningless etc..?
polymath257 wrote:
many times, the facts we can deduce from actual observation and testing are counter-intuitive, which means that pure thought experiments are not enough to deduce the validity of an idea.
I know exactly what you mean.
We encounter such things at the quantum level.
But here is where logic is indispensable, and proves that only it (logic, reason, intuition) is reliable (or available).
No matter how many test and observations one carries out; he will never be able to conclude on anything except he be able to identify at least one direct relationship (equality) of that thing with another.
Beyond that, all we have is probabilities; not being able to conclude on anything with certainty.
polymath257 wrote:
Mathematics has its own ways to verify ideas: based on proof starting from accepted axioms which may or may not apply to reality.
What about physics?

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#114340 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way. I am not trying to be a pain or anything. I just have questions that I do not have the answers for and I understand there is a lot we don't know and/or there is more that science has studied that I don't know of yet.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#114343 Jun 16, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a graduate of a well respected American University (engineering major) and have enjoyed a wonderful career as a result of my hard work and education. How about you big talker?
I am not out to destroy anything.
BTW evolution is not a legit field of science like biology or genetics or archeology, if it were people would be able to make a living as an evolutionist which is not going to happen. We simply do not have enough information at this point to know the origin of life.
Do you consider the School of Divinity at major universities to be a legitimate academic pursuit? Because from where I sit you seek to destroy that area of education.
I guess you have never heard of a evolutionary biologist who works in evolutionary biology which is a sub-field of biology?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114344 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
OK another question: to my knowledge every person born has 150 or more mutations. Now mutations happen to everyone and that is a fact. Should it not be said the "random effects” of mutations (everyone experiences mutations) are what are responsible for the new traits instead of just saying "random mutations" are what is responsible? We really don’t even know what mutations causes what trait/effect or how it even really works. In my opinion! After all it is the random effect of the mutation not the mutation itself. <<<(if that makes sense to anyone)
No.

Because natural selection isn't random.

We uh, MIGHT have mentioned that before.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114345 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is born with mutations, so in a sense they are not random things. It is the effect of the mutation that is random.
To an individual basis perhaps, however the continuation of their effect isn't.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114346 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes complete sense .ie: say there where 500,000 Nazis and 80% of them were German but the German population was 2,500,000. I see your point but everyone ties Nazis to Germans.
Oh? I thought everyone tied them to evolutionists!

;-p
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114347 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Is it not natural selection that should have determined what mutated or even arose in the first place?
No.

In that sense Repro was a darn sight closer than you.
FREE SERVANT

Duluth, GA

#114348 Jun 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if the density of matter/energy were higher, the expansion could be reversed. So there is a sense in which you could say that there isn't enough to stop the expansion.
More to the point, though, is that when Einstein's equations are applied to a situation where space itself (a vacuum) has an energy density, it turns out that the expansion rate will increase. Essentially, such a situation provides a pressure that tends to accelerate the expansion. This is called either dark energy or the cosmological constant depending on your interpretation of the equations and whether you think there is something going on at the particle level or not.
Do waves of energy travel throughout our Earth as well? Theoretically, could the Earth outer core be a liquid like salt water and the inner core be just ionized molecules from it's pressured movement about in the outer core? The statement in scripture about the fountains of the great deep as well as other claims about the Earth being made of water, leads me to believe water is under the crust in abundance.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114349 Jun 16, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
Britain, the USA and France are doing 'Geschichtsverfälschung'.
Britain knew it and did nothing over 6 years. Besides they are responsible for the raise of the Nazis. WW2 wouldn't happened without the treaty of Versaille. It wasn't the most profound disaster in human history. The colonization by the Brits was worse.
My grandparents aren't ignorant. My grandfather fought against the Brits for our freedom.
We should have won WW1. Then WW2 would never happened. We had forced Britain to give up their colonies. Then these countries would be free. The cold war would never happened and there were not an NSA today.
<quoted text>
Yeah, it's okay, blame it all on us if you want. We're historically a bunch of aholes anyway so what's a little more helping hand with your burden, eh?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114350 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
What is "intent"?
Actually yes there is.
Natural "selection" demonstrates intent.
No it doesn't. A giant asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs doesn't demonstrate someone intended the dinos to die a horrible death.

Unless you're saying someone deliberately threw that big rock their way.

And I'd ask for evidence at that point of course...
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114351 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain how the limitations of science dont really exist, as I have posted.
Describe my God concept.
Define "BS".
What makes a BS, BSy?
<quoted text>
What aspect of the "dogma" is non-verifiable?
How does one verify?
What happens when it is not possible to observe and conduct physical experiments?
<quoted text>
I leave the entire universe to see that you are a brain-washed, mind programmed entity; trying to mimic intelligent behavior.
Why are you shifting your burden of proof to me?

How about I back my claims up (which I do) and you back your claims up?

Which you don't.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 4 min andet1987 13,300
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 8 min andet1987 32,698
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 8 min - sebastien - 3,220
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 9 min - sebastien - 19,511
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 10 min - sebastien - 9,370
News Usain Bolt Taken Down - By A Segway 11 min Fart news 7
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 12 min beatlesinafog 9,459
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 12 min TALLYHO 8541 43,395
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min Crazy Jae 169,197
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) 23 min beatlesinafog 605
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Hot 98 18,635
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Lucy 1,232
More from around the web