A Mathematician's View of Evolution

The Mathematical Intelligencer ^ | Granville Sewell

[Last Visible Dog]

I suppose if repeating arguments I've already conceded or excluded could be called pedantry

You need to read a little closer - I was addressing the argument you conceded.

No would you like to consider the situation where the human is chasing the prey, and the prey is not a carnivore, or not chasing the human?

what kind of non-carnivore are you talking about - an Impala? a Gazelle? a rat?

[sittnick]

None of us know all of the creatures that were around three or four or thirty thousand years ago. We certainly don't know what similar looking specimens could mate with others and produce fertile offspring. (If an archeologist in the year 20000 AD came upon a poodle and rottweiler skeleton, not knowing of the existence of either because they died out, he would likely conclude they were different species) Heck, we STILL don't know all the species that are in the world right now. A good scientist doesn't just throw out raw assertions as facts. There is so much we don't know, and a large number of things we THOUGHT we know that have since been disproven or brought into question. ---- No it isn't. My point is that nutritional content, cooking properties and everything else you bring in is irrelevent to this discussion.

It is absolutely relevant. Peanuts are different from legumes in all sorts of ways. Just because a botanist happens to classify them based on how they grow does not mean that peanuts come from some other legume. It is just a handy way to categorize, nothing more. I am glad to see that you no longer pretend that the grocer is "wrong" to put the peanuts in with the other nuts in the supermarket.

[Last Visible Dog]

Hares with lighter fur are less likely to be seen by hawks on a snowpack.

So are you claiming something made this happen (design)?

You are reviewing historic data and applying a rule to it - nothing selected these animals - it just happened. Natural Selection is random because Natural Selection is an observation - not a force or power that can do anything. While black rabbits on the snow would not have a chance - still nothing is doing the selecting - it is random mutation with random success. In the past tense we can apply structures but nothing selected the rabbits.

Read Darwin - if it is not random, it is not evolution.

The selection isn't random -- there's a very good reason why rabbits with lighter fur survive -- but neither is it designed.

Answer the question please - if Natural Selection is not random - what force/god/designer is doing the selecting? What makes the selection?

Nothing designates a creatures ability to survive - it happens randomly.

[Alter Kaker]

None of us know all of the creatures that were around three or four or thirty thousand years ago.

Of course we do. We have intact humans from longer ago than that. 3000 years ago was well within the realm of recorded history, in many places.

We certainly don't know what similar looking specimens could mate with others and produce fertile offspring.

No, and without DNA from early Equines, we will likely never know. But we can make a very educated guess, judging from the fact that extant equines (like horses, zebras and asses) cannot normally produce fertile offspring.

Peanuts are different from legumes in all sorts of ways.

Name one.

I am glad to see that you no longer pretend that the grocer is "wrong" to put the peanuts in with the other nuts in the supermarket.

Should grocers pack Swedish Fish in the seafood section too?

[Last Visible Dog]

Actually, there is a considerable analogy here.

An analogy is not a relationship

At some point, they grow so far apart that they cannot reproduce easily

The country cannot reproduce easily? How does a country reproduce?

Sure! Well, for one, we share more genetic material in common with chimpanzees than chimpanzees share with other apes. That certainly suggests what I'm talking about. I'll try to find a recent paper that shows that.

That does not even address your statement "Not only have apes evolved, they have evolved at least as much as humans have evolved."

Can you show that other apes evolved at least as much as humans have evolved? What do you use to measure evolution?

[Alter Kaker]

You are reviewing historic data and applying a rule to it - nothing selected these animals - it just happened.

No, in this isntance, the hawks are doing the selecting. Some hares will have alleles leaving them darker, others will have alleles leaving them lighter, and that distribution will be somewhat random. But the fact that the hawks will eat more of the dark ones is anything but random, and it's the hawks that lead to a gradual shift in allele frequencies (aka evolution). Dark hares would have a chance and white hares wouldn't be invulnerable, but over time, lighter hares will clearly be more reproductively succesful than darker hares.

Answer the question please - if Natural Selection is not random - what force/god/designer is doing the selecting?

You're still not getting it. Here, the environment is doing the selecting. In this case, the active selector are the hawks. You either survive to pass on your genes or you don't, and if you don't, you're selected out of the game.

Nothing designates a creatures ability to survive - it happens randomly.

If that were the case, then it wouldn't matter what pigment a hare's fur is -- surival rates would be roughly the same for all populations. Faster rabbits would have no edge over slower rabbits. Smarter rabbits wouldn't be better at foraging for food than dumber rabbits.

[Alter Kaker]

Can you show that other apes evolved at least as much as humans have evolved? What do you use to measure evolution?

Yes you can. You compare DNA. Humand DNA and Chimpanzee DNA share more in common than Chimp and Gorilla DNA. That says something abot how much other apes have evolved relative to one another.

[ConservativeDude]

Excellent post. Thank you. Two things I am quite certain of: 1) materialism is false (ie, it doesn't tell the whole story), 2) the presuppositions of evolutionary scientists color everything they do, and many / most are incapable of even acknowledging that they have presuppositions, let alone are they able to rationally discuss them, and this is a problem.



ps - I stole my very truncated version of that point about naturalism being self-defeating from Alvin Plantinga (you probably know that, already though).

[betty boop]

Two things I am quite certain of: 1) materialism is false (ie, it doesn't tell the whole story), 2) the presuppositions of evolutionary scientists color everything they do, and many / most are incapable of even acknowledging that they have presuppositions, let alone are they able to rationally discuss them, and this is a problem.

Actually, Conservative Dude, this is THE problem (i.e., the lack of acknowledgement of presuppositions, and so the inability to rationally discuss them).

I'm not familiar with Alvin Plantinga, but would like to be. Please may I have the source for his point about naturalism being self-defeating? I so agree with that assessment!

Thanks so much for your kind words!

[FreedomProtector]

"I don't think it is the brain that thinks, but the mind. It appears to me that consciousness, like life itself, cannot be reduced to purely material causes. And Darwinism has no clue about the origin of either."


If the brain has been programmed only by chance, by random nature, why trust it?

Materialist reduction of ones consciousness to purely a host of biochemical reactions is an problem the evolutionist struggles with....

there are examples of this in evolutionary articles....hold on...providing evidence via quoting what evolutionists write....is defined as quote-mining by definition

[FreedomProtector]

Two things I am quite certain of: 1) materialism is false (ie, it doesn't tell the whole story), 2) the presuppositions of evolutionary scientists color everything they do, and many / most are incapable of even acknowledging that they have presuppositions, let alone are they able to rationally discuss them, and this is a problem.


perhaps worth adding to that....

3) Materialist presuppositions result in conclusions which are contradictory to the world. The Materialist cannot be consistent to the logic of their presuppositions, because the materialist lives in a reality which was made by something external to matter...God. This being so, Materialist is in a place of tension.

4) Materialists build up walls of protection to shield themselves from the point of tension. The materialist then erects barriers, even if completely irrational or improbable, to try to deal w/ the contradiction of how he observes the world.

5) We must lovingly and with true tears help to remove the shelter/roof and allow the truth of the created world to beat upon the materialist. Removing the irrational and improbable walls of protection is an important first step in communicating with people brainwashed by the materialism of the twentieth century.

[ahayes]

You're still not getting it.

Good luck with that! :-D

[ahayes]

materialism is false (ie, it doesn't tell the whole story)

You have no evidence that this is true, which makes sense as such evidence is outside the realm of the observable.

the presuppositions of evolutionary scientists color everything they do

Everyone's presuppositions color everything they do, as your post illustrates. The important thing is to be able to identify and evaluate one's presuppositions.

Materialist presuppositions result in conclusions which are contradictory to the world. The Materialist cannot be consistent to the logic of their presuppositions, because the materialist lives in a reality which was made by something external to matter...God.

Once again, no evidence of this, it's outside the realm of the observable. You assume something does exist "out there," and you're taking it on faith that it is God as you think of him and not something or someone else.

Yet you call other people "brainwashed."

[ConservativeDude]

Original argument is set forth in "Warrent and Proper Function":

http://www.amazon.com/Warrant-Proper-Function-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0195078640/sr=1-1/qid=1158863944/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5918534-0155219?ie=UTF8&s=books

Here is a collection of essays on Plantinga's argument:

http://www.amazon.com/Naturalism-Defeated-Plantingas-Evolutionary-Argument/dp/0801487633

Hope those Amazon links help!

[BlackElk]

AK:

Insulto, ergo sum.

Actually, how does one go about insulting someone who sincerely believe that he/she is descended from apes?

If I were to articulate my position, it would be a very long post. Out of consideration, I referenced the the best conservative book of the year which also demolishes the Darwinian fantasy and pretenses quite effectively but has an economy of prose which I find hard to match. Not only that but Ann is quite obviously not related to apes in any way and, besides, I knew her elder brother John about 35 years ago. He's no ape either. Nor am I but I will certainly let you speak for yourself on your own ancestry.

Of course, I never attended a gummint skewel until I attended law school and so I was brought up Catholic and not brought up to believe that I was a trousered ape. I also missed the Marxism, the eugenics, the birth controlism, the abortionism, the environmental whackoism, and other gummint skewel heresies.

Finally, those who argue for the fantasy of a godless universe, with life being strictly temporal and ending in oblivion at death regardless of moral or immoral behavior in life may well not see "pragmatism" (Lenin: You have to break eggs to make omelettes) as amoral or immoral but merely the greatest good for the greatest number and devil take the hindmost in the name of "progress." You have a right to be wrong but you do not have a right to be taken seriously.

[betty boop]

Thank you so very much, ConservativeDude, for the Amazon links! I'm overdue over there, time to visit again! :^) Definitely I'll check out the Plantinga "Naturalism Defeated...." It's a start.

[MHGinTN]

Is it your belief that there are no Christian evolution scientists?

[Last Visible Dog]

"Yes you can. You compare DNA. Humand DNA and Chimpanzee DNA share more in common than Chimp and Gorilla DNA. That says something abot how much other apes have evolved relative to one another."

That will not demonstrate what you claim unless you also have the DNA from chimps millions of years ago. Similar DNA is merely an observation that in and of itself proves nothing - chimps being different than Gorillas is irrelevant. To claim this proves chimps evolved as much as humans is merely an assumption.

[Last Visible Dog]

No, in this isntance, the hawks are doing the selecting.

Somewhat. Hawks eat what they can - they are not selecting. The end of the process is called natural selection. The animals eat what they can but it is still random - based on random mutation some animals don't get eaten - no matter how you slice it. it is still random and no "force" is controlling it.

You're still not getting it.

I say the same thing to you. You are not getting it. Nothing is directing the selection. Random mutations mean randomly things will survive or not survive. The changes start with a random mutation and the environmental response to this mutation is random (not directed)

Here, the environment is doing the selecting.

Yes but it is still random (not directed)

Let's review:

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

If you are claiming Natural Selection is is not random than it most has an aim, reason, or pattern - it does not.

If that were the case, then it wouldn't matter what pigment a hare's fur is -- surival rates would be roughly the same for all populations.

I think you are confused as to the meaning of the word "random"

[Last Visible Dog]

OK, lets sum this up into one question

You claim Natural Selection is not random

This is the definition of random:

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

So if Natural Selection is not random, as you claim, what is the aim, reason, or pattern of Natural Selection?