why do you think repeating the same claims that have already been disproven is an effective argument?
your incredulity is not evidence. It's you saying "nuh uh". Provide your evidence that all of modern biology, chemistry and physics is wrong. Then claim your nobel prize.
It’s obvious after all these posts you have no understanding Darwin’s work, no understanding of the concept of natural selection, and entirely miss the broader implications that an understanding of the principles of natural selections to almost any human endeavor business, science, engineering, etc. The principles of natural selection are easily observed in the accumulation of knowledge in scientific investigation. Having a true understanding of application of the principles of natural selection has on the diversity we observe in life makes no prediction about increasing complexity, something that has been conflated with natural selection, fist by Aristotle who postulated humans were at the pinnacle of a great biological hierarchy, and then by successive generations of philosophers, many highly religious, and many others driven to rationalize imperialism (lessors dominated by their superiors). Few, people commenting on Darwin have actually read his works and instead rely on others, mostly with their own agendas, to provide their distorted interpretations. Yet, the funny thing is that nearly everyone applies those principles as they develop their own egocentric understanding of how to survive in life. Chance happens. If it doesn’t, then reality is entirely deterministic which is the principle behind what many faiths suggest, that your fate is already known. If I flip a bi-face coin, 1000 times, is it statistically possible that I can show results of 1000 heads and 0 tails? DNA itself is particularly susceptible to copy error in cell division, where new imperfect recombinations can manifest in variation of a given genome through successive generations. If some of those variations (obvious in any large population) provide a competitively advantageous adaptation, the greater, the odds of the DNA code being passed to successive generations (a phenomena observed many times occurring in nature). When you understand the principles and process of natural selection and you are highly religious, which would make more sense on a theological level? That a god would design and build all the variation observed in the universe from the point of creation or provide a mechanism for adaptation that could withstand the complexity of chance events. To me, the latter, would be a more elegant and interesting solution and creation experiment. Or, do we live in a deterministic universe and simply watch our lives unfold to our inevitable fates?
"Natural selection" happens after the fact. "Natural selection" contributes nothing to what it has to select from. According to Darwinian Evolution, the variation that natural selection selects from is produced by mutations. Chance mutations cannot accumulate into ever increasing complexity. Chance anything cannot increase the functional complexity of anything no matter how much of it you have.
This is just you not knowing the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution absolutely includes what you call guidance.
Natural selection cannot provide guidance because natural selection chooses after the fact. Natural selection contributes nothing to the variation it has to select from. According to Darwinian evolution, natural selection selects from chance mutations. Chance mutations, chance anything, cannot increase the functional complexity of anything. Chance does not work that way no matter how much of it you have. I do not attribute to natural selection a knowledge aforethought, intent or ability to guide anything.
Being "after the fact" is EXACTLY what is necessary. One of a litter has some sligtly desirable feature and thus has a better chance of living to procreation. Some other member of the litter has a defect and thus has less of a chance of living to procreation. An agricultural engineer selects wheat plants that have slightly more or bigger kernels and interbreeds that selection - repeatedly. "After the fact" is the only time one can make that determination. Again, you just haven't understood the theory yet.
It certainly can when combined with natural selection, and demonstrably so in DNA where humans share DNA sequences with other animals that diverged from common ancestors millions of years ago. We share over 80% of DNA sequences with dogs and show only about 1.2% difference with that of bonobo chimpanzees. The huge body and continuing DNA research has not only been entirely consistent DARWIN’s conjectures of species sharing common ancestors but with assisting in the interpretation of the fossil record. 1000 flips...1000 heads. Possible?
In theory, natural selection selects from chance mutations after they have occurred. Natural selection selects the chance mutations that increase the functional complexity. The problem I have with that theory is that nothing can increase in functional complexity by chance, no matter how much chance you have.
Chance mutations cannot produce increases in functional complexity for natural selection to select. Since natural selections selects after chance mutations occur, natural selection cannot in anyway guide the mutations into increases in functional complexity that cannot be achieved by chance alone. Therefore, all increases in functional complexity, according to evolution, must come from chance mutations. The problem I have with that theory is that nothing can increase in functional complexity by chance no matter how much chance you have.
Some mutations will be positive and a lot of mutations will be negative. The idea that no mutations will be positive has no foundation. There isn't a mechanism blocking positive mutations from taking place. A larger problem here is that the entire world of biology has the theory of evolution as a foundation. We see this KIND of change all the time. It's why we need a new flu vaccine every year. It's why medicine is having an ever reducing affect on infections in humans. It's why engineers have been abe to improve food crops from time of first agriculture. It's why we can take wolves and create dogs that will be cute and fit in a purse. ALL these things are examples of evolution. Some include humans in the selection process - but there is nothing unacceptable about that.
See, that's the thing right there. Right there. Right exactly there. I disagree with the theory of evolution right there. None of the chance mutations can be positive. Nothing increases in functional complexity by chance no matter how simple or complex a thing already is or how much chance you have. Nothing can increase in functional complexity by chance. Chance is not a creative force.
Well, I know it's tough for you to get over that. But, again, all biology in the entire world sees evoluion as a foundational priciple that is used ALL the time. The part of your logic that I REALLY don't get is your willingness to take "ideas" from those who know NOTHING about a topic as equal in any way to the documented and tested findings of experts in the field. Not many biologists would claim they know bricklaying. Yet YOU say you know more about biology than the ENTIRE WORLD of experts.
Your plea to the masses are as deadbeat as are your pleas to authority. I don't assess ideas according to who or how many people proffer them. Those may play a part in which ideas I consider or in which order I consider ideas, but they play absolutely no part in my considerations themselves. I am stunned that you would assess an idea according who or how many people proffer it. WOW! That's some serious groupthink.
It's not "group think". Science is based on multiple methods of excluding ideas that are wrong. An individual guessing at something like evolution does not have that at their disposal. You have this idea about chance. But, you don't have the facilities or the time to see the elements of DNA, to separate and watch the steps in procreation at the cellular level, etc. You are basing your ideas on evolution on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!
What prevents the increase? What mechanism precludes increased complexity? You asserting it can’t be done does not refute the mountains of evidence that it is done.
You still haven’t answered the question I posed which if you are an expert on the subject of chance I figured you would have. A bi-face coin (head/tails), 1000 flips, 1000 times the result is heads. Is that possible?
That is really within the eye (heheh) of the beholder... If we're talking efficacy anyway. I mean, consider where the thing lives... You or I might lament the loss of our eyes, but given the Eyeless Huntsman's habitat, one has to ponder why it even needs them. After-all, something as functionally complex as eyes take a lot of energy to grow and maintain (and then there's the dirt that can get into them, ick!). So for the cave-dwelling Eyeless Huntsman at least, in the grand scheme of things losing its eyes is actually a gain since it can put that saved energy from not having eyes to better uses in its attempt to survive and reproduce. I think your math is off. More importantly though, it now sounds that you agree that mutations can and do occur. But just to clarify, are you also agreeing that DNA sequences specifically are able to experience chance mutation? -Meta
If a mutation helps an organism survive/reproduce, and survival/reproduction is considered positive, then yes, some mutations can be considered positive. Just like the cave spider who through evolution loses its eyes. The lizards who evolution cause to lose their limbs, becoming snake-like. Or how dolphins evolved specialized organs for echolocation and electroreception. Or how many species evolved brains with higher sophistication and or more capacity. Not all mutations will be beneficial, but the ones that are will be more likely to stick around across generations. As others have mentioned, this sticking around can't be attributed to chance alone, rather it is chance mutation along with a selection process that causes minor changes to stack up into the more complex ones over time. Some might call that joint relationship 'useful' to the ongoing survival of various species. But getting back to chance as a concept that can be thought of as useful to us currently living humans... You stated before that you felt that the concept of chance as an abstraction tool was useless to humans, and in response I asked you whether or not you thought things like fault tolerance, risk management, space travel, safety considerations, commercial air travel, computer software, and learning AI's were all useless as well... Still curious as to what your thoughts are on exactly how useful all those applications really are to humans... -Meta
You can flip a s many coins as you want as many times as you want and they will never land in a straight stack let alone a double helix. Chance doesn't work that way, but go ahead; try it.
To be painfully repetitive, I do believe that chance mutations occur, but I do not believe that they can increase functional complexity. Nothing increases in functional complexity by chance, no matter how much chance you have.
I'm sorry. I couldn't get past the first line of your post. Mutations can't do that. Chance mutations cannot increase functional complexity because nothing can increase in functional complexity by chance.
Never-mind complexity for now... if you agree that a chance mutation in DNA can occur, then surely you must also admit that such a mutation can by chance be beneficial to the organism, right? A single cell organism dependent upon light for instance, would benefit from a DNA mutation that allowed it to create light-sensing proteins. Agreed? -Meta
