Evolution, directed or un-directed?

[Tart]

For all those who think evolution is not directed, nothing but random chance, how do you know that? How do you know evolution isnt directed by God (or anything else at that matter)?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Nothing went wrong. In a permanently dark environment where sight is not an advantage offspring that do not have eyes may be favoured. This is because it costs energy to build and use eyes in an organism and that energy is wasted if the eyes serve no useful purpose. Over many generations the eyes can lose their function as offspring with diminished sight use their energy for other survival traits.

Which is to say that if their habitat changes where there is more light in the environment...PRESTO!!! Eyes will appear.

You are relying on faith, amgio. Hate to break it to ya.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 151 by For_The_Kingdom]

Which is to say that if their habitat changes where there is more light in the environment...PRESTO!!! Eyes will appear.

In a somewhat clumsy way you have essentially summarised millions of years in the evolution of the eye. Look up how the eye evolved and you may come to understand how survival advantages and evolution by natural selection are linked.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Asking someone to pick the odd one out is hardly a test for the the identification of animal genera. Are you unable to list the features that clearly distinguish between cats and dogs? Or is it because you can see where this is going and prefer to dodge?

Try listing the features that clearly distinguish between cats and dogs.

Who is dodging? The point is; a husky, a wolf, and a coyote are clearly the same "kind" of animal. Clearly. But since you want specifics, we can make this fairly simple..

Dog: a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.

Cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.

Two different definitions, right? Well, there you go. That is your distinction.

Some of the features mentioned in your definitions can be regarded as quite variable and also common. But, I didn't ask for definitions. I asked you to list the features that clearly distinguish between them. Can you do that?

But the distinctions are in the definition. If that aint good enough for you, then I don't know what else to tell ya.

[For_The_Kingdom]

In a somewhat clumsy way you have essentially summarised millions of years in the evolution of the eye. Look up how the eye evolved and you may come to understand how survival advantages and evolution by natural selection are linked.

In other words, "In x-million years, when no one is conveniently around to witness it, the blind fish will evolve eyes".

Faith. Relying on the unseen.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'm 100% on board with abiogenesis remaining on the table as a possibility until it can be shown to be wrong. It is one of several hypotheses, and may well prove to be wrong in the end. But until then ... it can remain a hypothesis.

The natural and the supernatural are the only hypothesis it could be...if there is a third alternative, I haven't seen it yet.

Because evolution has zero dependence on, or correlation with, HOW life came into existence. This is the one point me and others have been trying to hammer home but obviously aren't succeeding. If god is negated, and abiogenesis is false, then the origin of life simply has another explanation (naturalistic).

No, YOU are the one who doesn't seem to get it..and it is obvious that you don't seem to get it when you keep talking about another naturalistic explanations besides abiogenesis...despite the fact that any other naturalistic explanation would still be a "version" of abiogenesis, which is the idea that life came from nonlife.

No matter what natural explanation you posit, it will still be abiogenesis.

But evolution isn't impacted one way or the other ... because it has NO dependence on HOW life arose in the first place.

If abiogenesis is false, guess who is the only game left in town?? God.

Nope ... this is where you are wrong. The current ToE describes how life diversified on this planet, but it assumes some population of reproducing life forms existed to start with.

And if abiogenesis is false..it can only assume some populations of reproducing life forms existed via intelligent design, thus, successfully eliminating your whole "NoGod" theory.

HOW they came into existence is of no concern to ToE, and your insistence that there is a dependence is at odds with the very definition of ToE.

On naturalism, not only did life begin to evolve, but it originated from nonliving material. And on naturalism, you can't have life evolving if you don't have life originating.

So the only thing you can do at that point is, to your chagrin, is to simply admit that God could have been behind the whole thing...and as long as you admit that, that is enough for me.

Abiogenesis could be completely false meaning some other mechanism is responsible for the origin of life.

Any other mechanism would still fall under "abiogenesis", bro.

If that something isn't a god, then it is something besides god and abiogenesis. But .... again ... evolution does not care because it has no dependence on HOW life began.

Something besides God AND abiogenesis? Something like what? You are falling deeper into the hole, brethren.

So there are no other mechanisms. We only have two choices; naturalism, or supernaturalism.

No problem there.

But you just said it could be something without God and abiogenesis, both of which are covered under "naturalism/supernaturalism". SMH.

So, if God is out of the equation, evolution isn't dependent upon abiogenesis being true? Is that what you are saying?

Bingo! Evolution isn't dependent on ANY mechanism for the origin of life, natural or supernatural. That is the fundamental point "us people" have been trying to make.

So again, God is out of the equation, AND abiogenesis is out of the equation...so how can life possibly originate to begin evolving, then?? SMH.

What ... did you mean abiogenesis there instead of evolution? I'll assume that was a typo or we're way off the rails.

Oh yeah, that was a typo...how human of me to make a mistake.

Yes ... that's ridiculous. Life must come into being SOMEHOW. The point (again) is that the mechanism by which this occurs has no dependence on evolution working, because evolution only requires SOME mechanism for the origin of life so it has material to work with. If it isn't a god, or abiogenesis, then it is something else. But ToE doesn't care.

SMH.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 153 by For_The_Kingdom]

But the distinctions are in the definition. If that aint good enough for you, then I don't know what else to tell ya.

No, they are not. Let's say you were shown a series of photographs of an animal you had never seen before. You are told it is definitely of the cat "kind" or the dog "kind". You already know that each has many features in common, examples of which I listed for you earlier. Now, what distinguishing features would you look for in order to determine exactly which one it belonged to?

[benchwarmer]

Nothing went wrong. In a permanently dark environment where sight is not an advantage offspring that do not have eyes may be favoured. This is because it costs energy to build and use eyes in an organism and that energy is wasted if the eyes serve no useful purpose. Over many generations the eyes can lose their function as offspring with diminished sight use their energy for other survival traits.

Which is to say that if their habitat changes where there is more light in the environment...PRESTO!!! Eyes will appear.

You are relying on faith, amgio. Hate to break it to ya.

This seems to be another common misconception about evolution. Just because you think something should appear because it's advantageous, does not mean it will.

Eyes did not appear because there was light, eyes appeared due to a mutation that survived and eventually became advantageous to the point that those without it were out breeded in environments where eyes are useful.

The initial beginnings of eyes were probably not advantageous at all. They simply had to not be a disadvantage for enough generations until finally some organism started gaining an advantage due to having a light sensitive patch.

In other words, not every mutation has to be useful. It may remain useless for a very long time until something gains an advantage from it. It can easily go the other way too. Some mutation might be benign for a very long time and then as the environment changes it becomes a disadvantage and those with it can no longer survive long enough to breed. Natural selection in action.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 155 by For_The_Kingdom]

...despite the fact that any other naturalistic explanation would still be a "version" of abiogenesis, which is the idea that life came from nonlife.

Life is not a thing. It is a collection of chemical processes. As such, there is no such thing as living matter. All matter consists of combinations of the naturally occurring elements. Some of those are called organic because they are predominant in the structures of living organisms. Thus, in a sense, all life comes from non-life.

We know chemical reactions occur. We are surrounded by them and they make up what is essentially us. If we go back through the ages far enough we should see basic chemical reactions occurring all over the planet. All we need to do is accept that, although we don't know exactly what they were, some of those reactions led to organisations of matter that we would regard as living things.

On the other hand, a creator god is nothing more than a guess. At best it is just an invented answer. Make up a god that can do anything and you have a convenient answer to even the most difficult of questions.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 155 by For_The_Kingdom]

No, YOU are the one who doesn't seem to get it..and it is obvious that you don't seem to get it when you keep talking about another naturalistic explanations besides abiogenesis...despite the fact that any other naturalistic explanation would still be a "version" of abiogenesis, which is the idea that life came from nonlife.

No matter what natural explanation you posit, it will still be abiogenesis.

OK ... call any naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life "abiogenesis" if you like (even though that is not correct ... eg. panspermia is not abiogenesis). I have no problem with calling the options for the origin of life either naturalistic, or supernatural (a god). But that isn't the debate!

The problem all along is that you keep insisting that evolution in some way has a dependence on the mechanism for the orign of life, when it doesn't. Then you mix up various comments about whether abiogenesis is true or false, or whether god is in the picture or not, when all of that is irrelevant to evolution and its validity. That is the point.

I'm happy to accept that a god is on the table for origin of life ... there is no debate on that, or whether the origin of life is natural or supernatural. Take your pick. But don't keep making a claim that evolution in any way depends on, or is correlated with, the mechanism for the origin of life. That is the only point I am making in this thread, but you keep wandering off into whether abiogenesis is possible, or whether god is the source, when neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with evolution or whether it is valid or not.

I give up. I'm out of ways to keep making the same point over and over that evolution has no dependence on the mechanism for origin of life.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 159 by DrNoGods]

I give up. I'm out of ways to keep making the same point over and over that evolution has no dependence on the mechanism for origin of life.

This is the outcome of a deliberate strategy based on obfuscation, diversion and simple disregard for the arguments you have made. Your opponent will now pump the air and claim that your arguments have been demolished and that their arguments have prevailed. The truth is that their position was not reached through reason and any reasoning contrary to that position will simply not be seriously considered. Sadly, it renders these discussions somewhat pointless.