28 replies to this topic

[truefusion]

Somehow i have missed dasmeaty's reply to my post several months back, but, though i do have a response to his post, since it is several months old, i'll avoid responding to it for now.

Bikerman, on 19 September 2010 - 06:43 AM, said:

Unfortunately that does not mean that you can say
"Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal)."
as you do in your avatar, because that, itself, is a non sequitur.

What utter piffle. Of course coincidences exist. You either don't know what 'logical' actually means, or you are deliberately misusing the word, because nothing about coincidence is at all illogical.
It is not 'stated for convenience' or 'to fill the gap in knowledge' because that implies that there must be a causal relationship between two events which appear to be related. Where no such relationship exists then it is a coincidence.
Coincidences happen all the time and if you knew something of statistics you would know that they MUST happen.
Since you clearly believe in some form of creationism, then I will use a simple analogy that should appeal to you:

If my watch is stopped then it will show the correct time twice in any 24 hour period (assuming it is a rotary dial watch). If I happen to look at the watch at the time it just happens to be correct, then we call it a coincidence. Nothing illogical about it.

I am having trouble seeing why i cannot state what i have currently as my custom member-title from what i have said several months back. If coincidence bears no relation with anything, it follows that it cannot follow from anything, and so it cannot (logically) prove anything. If it cannot prove anything, it follows that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence. If coincidence, something that does not form a relationship, cannot be used, then we are left with something that requires there be a relation. Stating a reason for something implies a relationship, therefore everything that exists requires a reason for their existence. I merely mention "except if they are eternal" to imply what i mean for "everything," for it is obvious that anything that does not have a beginning cannot have a reason for its existence. Concerning this topic, natural selection is dependent on (or its basis is) coincidence, and so my statement contradicts natural selection.

While it may be safe to assume that if something is illogical, that it does not exist, i did not say that coincidence did not exist, i merely said that it was illogical. Nevertheless, coincidence deals with unrelated events which people form a relation to when there is none. However, the analogy that you give to try and show coincidence, does indeed show relation bewteen two events. While it may be the case that you staring down at your dead watch is not related to your dead watch displaying the current time, it is, however, relational that your dead watch is displaying the current time. We know that something is not related when we drop one of them and are still left with the other. And we know that something is relational when we drop one and the other falls along with it, and so are left with nothing. Therefore it is not possible to drop the event of the current time and still be left with the event of your dead watch displaying the current time.

What makes coincidence illogical? Coincidence shows no relation to anything and (therefore) it cannot prove a relationship. Something logical is something that shows a relationship between two or more things. Therefore coincidence is illogical.

[Bikerman]

truefusion, on 21 September 2010 - 11:52 AM, said:

I am having trouble seeing why i cannot state what i have currently as my custom member-title from what i have said several months back. If coincidence bears no relation with anything, it follows that it cannot follow from anything, and so it cannot (logically) prove anything. If it cannot prove anything, it follows that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence.

You are confusing yourself.
a) Coincidence does not follow from some mechanism - true.
b ) It cannot therefore be used to demonstrate any mechanism - partially true.
c) Therefore it cannot...etc....false.
That is your basic mistake.

A set of coincidences (a-z) can result in outcome X. Outcome X is therefore a result of coincidences a,b,c...z.

Natural selection does not actually depend on ANY coincidence. There are a number of mutations that occur naturally to all germ DNA. That is no coincidence, that is a simple fact which is universally applicable.
The rest is entirely deterministic in that the mutations that produce the adaptation best suited to survival/breeding will, of course, be passed on.

You also have a problem with your definition of logical....I will leave you to work that out, since I am sure you are intelligent enough to spot the flaw.

Edited by Bikerman, 21 September 2010 - 01:57 PM.

[truefusion]

Bikerman, on 21 September 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

You are confusing yourself.
a) Coincidence does not follow from some mechanism - true.
b ) It cannot therefore be used to demonstrate any mechanism - partially true.
c) Therefore it cannot...etc....false.
That is your basic mistake.

A set of coincidences (a-z) can result in outcome X. Outcome X is therefore a result of coincidences a,b,c...z.

If Z is the result of Y, and Y the result of X, and X the result of V, and so on, then it cannot be said it is due to coincidence. As mentioned before, coincidence cannot prove a relationship. Therefore what you state to be "coincidences" are not so. Therefore my statement, that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence, would still stand.

Bikerman, on 21 September 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Natural selection does not actually depend on ANY coincidence. There are a number of mutations that occur naturally to all germ DNA. That is no coincidence, that is a simple fact which is universally applicable.
The rest is entirely deterministic in that the mutations that produce the adaptation best suited to survival/breeding will, of course, be passed on.

The definition for natural selection as given by Charles Darwin in chapter 4 of his book, the Origin of Species, entails a process that does not consider the environment, the creature's well being, et cetera. It is a process that does not bear any relation to anything external of the organism. Arguably, neither does it bear any relation to anything internal to the creature. For the process is defined as something that can generate something either desirable or undesirable to the creature—this may imply something conscious doing the decision making, but "mother nature" can be taken as unconscious. Since it can be either desirable or undesirable, the deciding process therefore is not deterministic (showing no relation; coincidental). It is easy to try and argue for a process that shows desirable traits (though, by the definition of natural selection, that is futile), but for those that show undesirable traits, what would it matter if the creature will eventually die 'cause of it? Science needs there to be a relation in order to further understand and to link things together, so it is no wonder why anyone would try to argue for a relation.

Bikerman, on 21 September 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

You also have a problem with your definition of logical....I will leave you to work that out, since I am sure you are intelligent enough to spot the flaw.

The only problem i see is that you do not seem to understand my explanation.

[Bikerman]

truefusion, on 23 September 2010 - 05:13 PM, said:

If Z is the result of Y, and Y the result of X, and X the result of V, and so on, then it cannot be said it is due to coincidence. As mentioned before, coincidence cannot prove a relationship. Therefore what you state to be "coincidences" are not so. Therefore my statement, that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence, would still stand.

Let us take an example.
A driver is proceeding down a road. An ambulance happens to speed past them and causes him to swerve. At that moment a person jumps into the road and forces him to violently steer right which means he swerves into a bus queue and happens to kill the brother of the person in the ambulance. Coincidence? Yes. There is no causal link between the elements, yet the person dies and there is a coincidence.

I do not understand what 'excuse' means in this context. It seems to me to be an entirely inappropriate word for 'reason'. As I said earlier, your problem is that evolution does not require coincidence so the thesis is flawed from the start.

Quote

The definition for natural selection as given by Charles Darwin in chapter 4 of his book, the Origin of Species, entails a process that does not consider the environment, the creature's well being, et cetera. It is a process that does not bear any relation to anything external of the organism. Arguably, neither does it bear any relation to anything internal to the creature. For the process is defined as something that can generate something either desirable or undesirable to the creature—this may imply something conscious doing the decision making, but "mother nature" can be taken as unconscious. Since it can be either desirable or undesirable, the deciding process therefore is not deterministic (showing no relation; coincidental). It is easy to try and argue for a process that shows desirable traits (though, by the definition of natural selection, that is futile), but for those that show undesirable traits, what would it matter if the creature will eventually die 'cause of it? Science needs there to be a relation in order to further understand and to link things together, so it is no wonder why anyone would try to argue for a relation.

You have completely misunderstood (and misrepresented) Darwin. Chapter 4 deals with the environment in detail.

Quote

We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some slight physical change, for instance, of climate. The proportional numbers of its inhabitants will almost immediately undergo a change, and some species will probably become extinct. We may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any change
in the numerical proportions of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate itself, would seriously affect the others. If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this would likewise seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up, if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such cases, slight modifications, which in any way favoured the individuals of any species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would have free scope for the work of improvement.

Quote

In looking at many small points of difference between species, which, as far as our ignorance permits us to judge, seem quite unimportant, we must not forget that climate, food, &c., have no doubt produced some direct effect. It is also necessary to bear in mind that, owing to the law of correlation, when one part varies, and the variations are accumulated through natural selection, other modifications, often of the most unexpected nature, will ensue.

Do you want me to continue? I can quote as much as needed.

I think you are possibly referring to the section on sexual selection. Even then you have misunderstood. There is no 'mother nature'. There is no decision making, conscious or otherwise. There is simply reproduction. Those genes best suited will reproduce. If those genes express themselves in a certain phenotype (physically obvious way) then that phenotype will proliferate.
Can this work to pass-on undesirable traits? Yes it can. Sickle-cell anaemia is common because it was selected for - it conveys resistance to malaria. You therefore get a greater proliferation of that particular gene.

Why do you think that evolutionary theory rests on Darwin in any case? Do you not understand the work on genetics and the evolutionary synthesis that has been formulated since then? Trying to pick holes in Darwin's original formulation is to ignore the work since, and is therefore disingenuous. If you want to talk about evolution then bring it on.

Edited by Bikerman, 23 September 2010 - 09:32 PM.

[Zagubadu·]

So obvious. Its not possible for something to evolve into an egg. So the chicken would have to come first. Whatever they came from probably also layed eggs. Birds have scales you know.

[Harlot]

Who made the chicken pop up out of no where? Was this God or was the chicken a result of evolution? Did the chicken didn't developmental stages or did the sun come up on day and there the chicken was?

[Bikerman]

Harlot, on 24 September 2010 - 04:35 AM, said:

Who made the chicken pop up out of no where? Was this God or was the chicken a result of evolution? Did the chicken didn't developmental stages or did the sun come up on day and there the chicken was?

Well, first come the dinosaurs. Then comes a particular dinosaur called Archaeopteryx. Then this evolves and one generation is getting close to what we call a chicken. Where you draw the line is moot...

[truefusion]

Bikerman, on 23 September 2010 - 05:50 PM, said:

Let us take an example.
A driver is proceeding down a road. An ambulance happens to speed past them and causes him to swerve. At that moment a person jumps into the road and forces him to violently steer right which means he swerves into a bus queue and happens to kill the brother of the person in the ambulance. Coincidence? Yes. There is no causal link between the elements, yet the person dies and there is a coincidence.

I do not understand what 'excuse' means in this context. It seems to me to be an entirely inappropriate word for 'reason'. As I said earlier, your problem is that evolution does not require coincidence so the thesis is flawed from the start.

The only possible coincidence is caused by the emphasis placed on who is in the ambulence and who died at the bus queue; however, this emphasis is placed for no apparent reason, therefore meaningless, non-sequitur. Nevertheless, it is possible that the reason why the brother was at the bus queue was because he lacked transportation to the hospital and that he was not allowed to ride in the ambulence. In other words, the incident that the one in the ambulence was involved in happened near the bus queue.

Bikerman, on 23 September 2010 - 05:50 PM, said:

You have completely misunderstood (and misrepresented) Darwin. Chapter 4 deals with the environment in detail.


Do you want me to continue? I can quote as much as needed.

Well, then, you'll have to quote more, 'cause what you have quoted does not show that the environment is considered for the species' evolution. Rather, the quote you provided talks about the land undergoing climate change, not the creatures undergoing any change, for there is no mention of this climate change causing the animals to evolve. In fact, it even mentions, "independently of the change of climate itself." Anything further mentioned does not provide any information on environmental changes causing biological changes in the inhabitants.

Bikerman, on 23 September 2010 - 05:50 PM, said:

Why do you think that evolutionary theory rests on Darwin in any case? Do you not understand the work on genetics and the evolutionary synthesis that has been formulated since then? Trying to pick holes in Darwin's original formulation is to ignore the work since, and is therefore disingenuous. If you want to talk about evolution then bring it on.

If we are to use terms like "natural selection," then we must use authoritative sources that explicitly define what they mean. In this case, we have Darwin. If you have other sources that explicitly define "natural selection" in accordance to what we know today, where "natural selection" is not simply mentioned as if it assumes that we should already know what it means, then you should post these sources. Until then, there is no other reason to assume anything further than what Darwin himself wrote.

[Bikerman]

truefusion, on 27 September 2010 - 08:43 AM, said:

The only possible coincidence is caused by the emphasis placed on who is in the ambulence and who died at the bus queue; however, this emphasis is placed for no apparent reason, therefore meaningless, non-sequitur. Nevertheless, it is possible that the reason why the brother was at the bus queue was because he lacked transportation to the hospital and that he was not allowed to ride in the ambulence. In other words, the incident that the one in the ambulence was involved in happened near the bus queue.

Co-incidence is simply two or more unrelated happenings. There are several unrelated happenings in the scenario which result in a person being killed.

Quote

Well, then, you'll have to quote more, 'cause what you have quoted does not show that the environment is considered for the species' evolution. Rather, the quote you provided talks about the land undergoing climate change, not the creatures undergoing any change, for there is no mention of this climate change causing the animals to evolve. In fact, it even mentions, "independently of the change of climate itself." Anything further mentioned does not provide any information on environmental changes causing biological changes in the inhabitants.

But this is sheer nonsense, as well as being untrue. The last sentence in my quoted passage clearly refers to EXACTLY environmental change producing biological change.
"In such cases, slight modifications, which in any way favoured the individuals of any species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would have free scope for the work of improvement."
It couldn't be more explicit.

The whole thesis of 'On the origin' is concerned with environment affecting phenotype. Chapter 3 begins with an introduction to this idea:

Quote

BEFORE entering on the subject of this chapter, I must make a few preliminary remarks, to show how the struggle for existence bears on Natural Selection. It has been seen in the last chapter that amongst organic beings in a state of nature there is some individual variability:indeed I am not aware that this has ever been disputed. It is immaterial for us whether a multitude of doubtful forms be called species or sub-species or varieties; what rank, for instance, the two or three hundred doubtful forms of British plants are entitled to hold, if the existence of any well-marked varieties be admitted. But the mere existence of individual variability and of some few well-marked varieties, though necessary as the foundation for the work, helps us but little in understanding how species arise in nature. How have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of the organisation to another part, and to the conditions of life,and of one organic being to another being, been perfected? We see these beautiful coadaptations most plainly in the woodpecker and the mistletoe; and only a little less plainly in the humblest parasite which clings to the hairs of a quadruped or feathers of a bird; in the structure of the beetle which dives through the water; in the plumed seed which is wafted bythe gentlest breeze; in short, we see beautiful adaptations everywhere and in every part of the organic world.

The word 'adaption' means exactly change in relation to the environment.

He hammers this home explicitly in the following paragraphs:

Quote

We have good reason to believe, as shown in the first chapter, that changes in the conditions of life give a tendency to increased variability; and in the foregoing cases the conditions have changed, and this would manifestly be favourable to natural selection, by affording a better chance of the occurrence of profitable variations.

Quote

Again, it may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have called incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and distinct species which in most cases obviously differ from each other far more than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groups of species, which constitute what are called distinct genera, and which differ from each other more than do the species of the same genus, arise? All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next chapter, follow from the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.

Quote

If we are to use terms like "natural selection," then we must use authoritative sources that explicitly define what they mean. In this case, we have Darwin. If you have other sources that explicitly define "natural selection" in accordance to what we know today, where "natural selection" is not simply mentioned as if it assumes that we should already know what it means, then you should post these sources. Until then, there is no other reason to assume anything further than what Darwin himself wrote.

You want sources? Nothing easier:
http://www.sciencema...t/320/5883/1629
http://bjps.oxfordjo.../57/4/627.short
http://genomebiology...ght-20050118-01
http://iai.asm.org/c.../full/72/5/2457
http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/1/3/362/

I can supply thousands if you have the time to read them....

Alternatively you could use the dictionary:

Quote

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Quote

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) a process resulting in the survival of those individuals from a population of animals or plants that are best adapted to the prevailing environmental conditions. The survivors tend to produce more offspring than those less well adapted, so that the characteristics of the population change over time, thus accounting for the process of evolution

Quote

The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring. As a result of natural selection, the proportion of organisms in a species with characteristics that are adaptive to a given environment increases with each generation. Therefore, natural selection modifies the originally random variation of genetic traits in a species so that alleles that are beneficial for survival predominate, while alleles that are not beneficial decrease. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection forms the basis of the process of evolution.

Edited by Bikerman, 29 September 2010 - 05:15 PM.