Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
38. From talk origins:
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:58 PM
Aug 2012
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating....


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

From Berkeley:

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2

From biologist Richard Dawkins:

You said in a recent speech that design was not the only alternative to chance. A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.

That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.


http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/11/The-Problem-With-God-Interview-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx

Need I go on?
"...he writes about his hunger for meaning...." We put meaning in the universe... GodlessBiker Aug 2012 #1
Do you consider meaning to be subjective? rug Aug 2012 #3
It's subjective in that it is created by the subject. GodlessBiker Aug 2012 #6
Therefore, there is nothing that exists that has objective meaning? rug Aug 2012 #10
Meaning which exists outside of consciousness? No. GodlessBiker Aug 2012 #15
I think we're headed into falling tree sound territory. rug Aug 2012 #18
No. It's simply an attribute of consciousness to create meaning in the world. GodlessBiker Aug 2012 #20
Ok, but that is different from meaning being subjective. rug Aug 2012 #22
But an instinct isn't equivalent to meaning. It's just another background fact which helps create.. GodlessBiker Aug 2012 #44
The corrollary of that statement is that there are no shared values. rug Aug 2012 #69
The corrollary of that statement is that there are no shared values. AlbertCat Aug 2012 #92
Do you realize you're disagreeing with him? rug Aug 2012 #107
I'm perfectly happy with it all being meaningless. alfredo Aug 2012 #49
If it was vibrating, we could objectively measure it. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #54
Not if neither you nor your equipment is there. rug Aug 2012 #65
If it has never been measured AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #71
A galaxy, yet undiscovered, does not exist now by that standard. rug Aug 2012 #74
We have quite a lot of evidence that we are only nibbling at the edges of how many stars and AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #75
You didn't answer. rug Aug 2012 #77
particles may resonate and have frequency. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #78
Have you now become a WaveistCrusader? rug Aug 2012 #80
I see. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #82
Well, since you're the one claiming waves don't exist unless someone measures them, this is overdue. rug Aug 2012 #85
And of course, that isn't what I said at all. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #97
I am picking up smething you're giving off. rug Aug 2012 #105
You never answered post 75. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #110
I did. Apparently you reject wave physics as evidence. rug Aug 2012 #111
Reviewing the thread I may have read something into post 18 AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #118
Here is his description of his God cbayer Aug 2012 #2
This is where he puts himself on the atheist spectrum. rug Aug 2012 #4
Interesting take and it resonates with me. cbayer Aug 2012 #5
It frustrating when people use words like "random formation"... cleanhippie Aug 2012 #8
If not random, is it deliberate? rug Aug 2012 #11
Mutations are random, but nature selects only those that are fit enough. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #12
Well, personifying nature is dangerous. rug Aug 2012 #14
I wasn't personifying nature, simply using vocabulary that is easy to understand. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #17
Natural selection is simply LTX Aug 2012 #32
Not exactly sure how you could have possibly gotten that from what he wote... (nt) eqfan592 Aug 2012 #33
Well, then I'm not sure what he meant by LTX Aug 2012 #34
From PBS: eqfan592 Aug 2012 #35
Well gee. I guess if its PBS . . . LTX Aug 2012 #37
From talk origins: eqfan592 Aug 2012 #38
Actually, yes. LTX Aug 2012 #40
Sorry, but I'm in no mood to teach a biology lesson. eqfan592 Aug 2012 #43
Really? LTX Aug 2012 #47
I said you were in need of further study on the subject. eqfan592 Aug 2012 #52
No, you said nothing of the kind. LTX Aug 2012 #58
You do understand people can just scroll up and read previous posts, right? eqfan592 Aug 2012 #59
Yes, people can scroll up and read previous posts. LTX Aug 2012 #61
"Are Random Drift and Natural Selection Conceptually Distinct?" - thanks for ... Jim__ Aug 2012 #114
Oh, and by the way, LTX Aug 2012 #70
Listen, as I said earlier... eqfan592 Aug 2012 #89
I applaud your efforts and appreciate your assistance. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #99
What I am saying is not the product of "willful ignorance." LTX Aug 2012 #112
Honest question here. eqfan592 Aug 2012 #113
The short answer is yes. Prof. Mayr's LTX Aug 2012 #117
They're using fucked-up semantics - The word "random" has several different meanings. bananas Aug 2012 #125
Huh??? eqfan592 Aug 2012 #128
"they're using it in the way creationists like to use it" - exactly. bananas Aug 2012 #129
"directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment" FiveGoodMen Aug 2012 #42
Whoa there. LTX Aug 2012 #48
I said that environmental changes are deterministic. FiveGoodMen Aug 2012 #50
Actually, there's a difference. LTX Aug 2012 #51
I'll leave you to your own private dictionary FiveGoodMen Aug 2012 #53
It's a common dictionary. LTX Aug 2012 #60
rofl - that's as bad as creationism! bananas Aug 2012 #124
I'm unsure about exactly what it is you find so humorous. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #126
Maybe it's a semantic problem - see my post #129. nt bananas Aug 2012 #130
Interesting take, but a bit of a straw man. longship Aug 2012 #28
There is a tension between organization and entropy. rug Aug 2012 #29
Yes, good point! longship Aug 2012 #30
There is a tension between organization and entropy. AlbertCat Aug 2012 #94
Chaos > Entropy > Organization? rug Aug 2012 #108
Go read a book on Chaos theory AlbertCat Aug 2012 #115
I have. rug Aug 2012 #121
There are gross "rules" that can be used LTX Aug 2012 #36
Indeed true. longship Aug 2012 #41
If people are going to pontificate about the meaning of anything intaglio Aug 2012 #7
Do you prefer "pointless"? rug Aug 2012 #9
I might have done if I hadn't been caught up in the uses of meaning intaglio Aug 2012 #24
What is the meaning of the first Tuesday in November? rug Aug 2012 #27
No I am just saying that the question is void intaglio Aug 2012 #45
You can allay your suspicions simply by answering the question. rug Aug 2012 #68
The November question? intaglio Aug 2012 #100
Speaking of verbal diarrhea, you should have stopped after the first sentence. rug Aug 2012 #104
Not an answer, just more evasion intaglio Aug 2012 #122
It's your framework. Do you see meaning in tthe election. rug Aug 2012 #127
But we were dealing with a far more complex subject intaglio Aug 2012 #131
You are, in essence, asserting nihilism. AlbertCat Aug 2012 #95
"We, humans, DO care, and should, because we live in our human world" rug Aug 2012 #106
I just told you why. AlbertCat Aug 2012 #116
No you didn't. rug Aug 2012 #120
Atheism doesn't require meaning at all. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #13
Hmmm, atheism is meaningless. rug Aug 2012 #16
No, you shouldn't. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #19
Everything is meaningless, in an objective sense. mr blur Aug 2012 #25
That's not true. Is a life meaningless? rug Aug 2012 #26
It only has the meaning that one chooses to give it. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #31
Ask your mother. rug Aug 2012 #39
Perhaps to those that are aware of us, individually. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #56
Does a child blown to bits in Kabul have meaning to you? rug Aug 2012 #62
The ones I've been able to find out about, yes. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #66
But not the dead unknown to you? rug Aug 2012 #67
As soon as they become known AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #72
I'm not nearly that solipsistic. rug Aug 2012 #73
You just abused that term. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #76
Is your opposition to war the result of your subjective view? rug Aug 2012 #79
Absolutely. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #81
You are confusing agreement with subjective knowledge. rug Aug 2012 #86
You are confusing agreement with subjective knowledge. AlbertCat Aug 2012 #96
Am I? AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #119
Well if you believe that, then religion is meaningless intaglio Aug 2012 #46
No equivalence at all. rug Aug 2012 #63
OK so tell us what these meanings and purposes are. intaglio Aug 2012 #101
The phrase "verbal diarrhea" is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. rug Aug 2012 #103
Odd, you accept the objectionable phrase as applying to yourself intaglio Aug 2012 #123
More like atheists don't require the crutch of imaginary imposed meaning by others upon the universe AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #55
Well, if it's all in your own head, so be it. rug Aug 2012 #64
Interesting interview. It leads me to 2 main thoughts. Jim__ Aug 2012 #21
That could only work for a limited amount of time, even if it could be done. rug Aug 2012 #23
I believe that if you transcribed everything about my brain onto a mechanical device AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #57
It appears that you think reincarnation is possible - minus the soul cpwm17 Aug 2012 #88
I am not aware of anything one might describe as a 'soul'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #98
I agree with everything you wrote cpwm17 Aug 2012 #109
It seems far-fetched that computers could ever become conscious cpwm17 Aug 2012 #87
We don't know whether or not it is far-fetched. Jim__ Aug 2012 #90
I don't know whether reincarnation into computers is possible, I'm making an educated guess it's not cpwm17 Aug 2012 #102
I think I just saw the structure of the universe in the last topic I saw... Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2012 #83
Lol, good for Sammy. rug Aug 2012 #84
oh sure Kali Aug 2012 #91
Oh we're nothing if not classy in here. rug Aug 2012 #93
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»On Reconciling Atheism an...»Reply #38