Random Chance or Natural Selection

[William]

[Quote from another thread]

bluegreenearth: Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection

William: Q:. What is the difference?

I think the key word is "by" which - with the word "Guided" - implies some type of intelligent designer.
However, when I change the sentence with something along the lines of;

"Evolution is not the result of random chance but of natural selection" the implication of a Creator (some type of intelligent designer) is still to be seen in the words "natural selection".

Given [font=Georgia]Natural Selection[/font] is shown through science to be guiding evolution, it would appear that it is a substitute phrase which seeks to move our thinking away from there being a Creator, into that which is The Creation.

It bestows upon Creation the same necessity which theists bestow upon their Creators...the necessity of being able to guide a process intelligently and with purpose. Not just assigning The Creation with being nothing more than a mindless mishmash which accidentally came about purely by "random chance".

[Bust Nak]

It bestows upon Creation the same necessity which theists bestow upon their Creators...the necessity of being able to guide a process intelligently and with purpose.

Why? Can a rolling ball not be said to be guided by the gradient of a slope down to the bottom? What intelligence and purpose would you assign to a slope?

[William]

[Replying to post 11 ]


William: It bestows upon Creation the same necessity which theists bestow upon their Creators...the necessity of being able to guide a process intelligently and with purpose. Not just assigning The Creation with being nothing more than a mindless mishmash which accidentally came about purely by "random chance".

Bust Nak:Why?

William: Because intelligence is observed through the forms, so it requires explaining and 'random chance' is obviously missing out that point, whereas "Natural Selection" allows for it to be acknowledged.

Bust Nak: Can a rolling ball not be said to be guided by the gradient of a slope down to the bottom? What intelligence and purpose would you assign to a slope?

William: Is the ball and slope intelligent and self aware? Is there anything about the ball which shows us intelligence at work within the process of "Natural Selection"?
So far we have a slope and a rolling ball. That is at least an example of Random Chance. Why call that an example of "Natural Selection".
If you can answer this, you will show that the claim;

• "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection"

to be false.

[Bust Nak]

Because intelligence is observed through the forms, so it requires explaining and 'random chance' is obviously missing out that point, whereas "Natural Selection" allows for it to be acknowledged.

Isn't that backwards, we observed natural selection, and you want intelligence as the explanation when it isn't required.

Is the ball and slope intelligent and self aware? Is there anything about the ball which shows us intelligence at work within the process of "Natural Selection"?

No, and that's the point, "guided" does not imply intelligence at work.

So far we have a slope and a rolling ball. That is at least an example of Random Chance.

How is it random? It is gonna roll the same way every time.

Why call that an example of "Natural Selection".
If you can answer this, you will show that the claim;

• "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection"

to be false.

I don't see how?

[William]

[Replying to post 13 ]

Bust Nak: Why?

William: Because intelligence is observed through the forms, so it requires explaining and 'random chance' is obviously missing out that point, whereas "Natural Selection" allows for it to be acknowledged.

Bust Nak: Isn't that backwards, we observed natural selection, and you want intelligence as the explanation when it isn't required.

William: No I do not have that backwards.
Intelligence exists and what's more, intelligence wants to know.
"Random Chance" is one explanation for the evidence we have, but not the only one.
That is why the claim;...

• "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection"

...can be made.

"Random Chance" does not fully explain anything. Natural Selection shows us there is intelligence involved in the process, which adds more toward explanation.

Which came first Intelligence or "Random Chance" cannot be determined by those within the universe.
If Intelligence came through what appears to us to be "Random", we still cannot say with any certainty that at some point in the procedure the intelligence didn't take the helm and fire it up a notch into Natural Selection.

Thus, the debate goes on...

• Is the ball and slope intelligent and self aware? Is there anything about the ball which shows us intelligence at work within the process of "Natural Selection"?

Bust Nak: No, and that's the point, "guided" does not imply intelligence at work.

William: Really? Did your professors tell you this, or did you think of it on your own Bast Nak?
Can you give an example of something used for guidance which doesn't involve intelligence? If so, it will greatly help me in understanding your point of view on the matter of matter.

• So far we have a slope and a rolling ball. That is at least an example of Random Chance.

Bust Nak: How is it random? It is gonna roll the same way every time.

William: Oh yes. I was being ironical.

Having studied it for ages we can certainly make correct predictions every time.
Yet we still do not know if the ball and the slope were designed by intelligence or simply came about through random chance.

The question isn't that something which we can identify as being 'Random Chance' isn't part of a wider process.
Rather the question is about what we think of as "Random Chance" may not be that at all, but rather Natural Selection through Intelligent Process.
Natural Selection is thus the medium the Intelligent Process can be verified as working through.
Just on a scale we cannot easily comprehend let alone make accurate claims about.

• That is at least an example of Random Chance. Why call that an example of "Natural Selection".
  If you can answer this, you will show that the claim;
  
  "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection"
  
  to be false.

Bust Nak: I don't see how?

William: First you must provide the answer to the question:

Q: Why call an example of "Random Chance" an example of "Natural Selection"?

Then we can look at how your answer would show the claim;...

• "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection"

...to be false.

[brunumb]

[Replying to ]

brunumb: You seem to be conflating natural selection with abiogenesis. The origin of living organisms is a separate issue from the evolution of organisms through natural selection.

William: Separating the whole process into different processes to make them 'separate issues' does not in itself mean that one is not intimately connected with the other.
My comments are about the claim "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection"
Intelligence may be harder to spot with abiogenesis, but that is besides the point.

In the rest of that post (#7) I addressed the issue of natural selection not requiring an intelligent hand. Do you have a rebuttal?

[Diagoras]

The Claim:

bluegreenearth:Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection.

The Question:

William: Q: What is the difference?

Diagoras: How about providing some good examples of scientific explanations of evolution through natural selection?

OK, let’s take a closer look at the difference. I’m going to quote from “The Greatest Show On Earth� by Richard Dawkins (subtitled: ‘The evidence for evolution’). A pdf copy of the book can be easily downloaded for free from here.
From page 42:

�1 Humans deliberately choose attractive roses, sunflowers etc. for breeding, thereby preserving the genes that produce the attractive features. This is called artificial selection, it’s something humans have known about since long before Darwin, and everybody understands that it is powerful enough to turn wolves into chihuahuas and to stretch maize cobs from inches to feet.

2 Peahens (we don’t know whether consciously and deliberately, but let’s guess not) choose attractive peacocks for breeding, again thereby preserving attractive genes. This is called sexual selection, and Darwin discovered it, or at least clearly recognized it and named it.

3 Small prey fish (definitely not deliberately) choose attractive angler fish for survival, by feeding the most attractive ones with their own bodies, thereby inadvertently choosing them for breeding and passing on, and therefore preserving, the genes that produce the attractive features. This is called – yes, we’ve finally got there – natural selection, and it was Darwin’s greatest discovery.

Darwin’s special genius realized that nature could play the role of selecting agent. Everybody knew about artificial selection,* or at least everybody with any experience of farms or gardens, dog shows or dovecotes. But it was Darwin who first spotted that you don’t have to have a choosing agent. The choice can be made automatically by survival – or failure to survive. Survival counts, Darwin realized, because only survivors reproduce and pass on the genes (Darwin didn’t use the word) that helped them to survive.�

<bolding mine>

For anyone who has the time (it is 433 pages, plus references) and a genuine interest in learning about evolution, I recommend the book. It’s very readable, and addresses all the most common objections made by Creationists. To the OP, if you wish to make the question about whether there is some ‘Intelligent Process’ behind the selection, I’d do no better than to direct you to the same source, but page 256, which cites numerous examples of ‘unintelligent design’. Thus, there is strong evidence to support ‘natural selection’ over any kind of ‘intelligent design’, or of mere ‘random chance’.

[Bust Nak]

No I do not have that backwards.
Intelligence exists and what's more, intelligence wants to know.
"Random Chance" is one explanation for the evidence we have, but not the only one.
That is why the claim;...

• "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection"

...can be made.

"Random Chance" does not fully explain anything. Natural Selection shows us there is intelligence involved in the process, which adds more toward explanation.

It's not clear why you think "natural Selection shows us there is intelligence involved in the process?"

Which came first Intelligence or "Random Chance" cannot be determined by those within the universe.

Or neither, nature came first?

If Intelligence came through what appears to us to be "Random", we still cannot say with any certainty that at some point in the procedure the intelligence didn't take the helm and fire it up a notch into Natural Selection.

Okay, but we can say with certainty that intelligence is not required though.

Really? Did your professors tell you this, or did you think of it on your own Bast Nak?

It's me.

Can you give an example of something used for guidance which doesn't involve intelligence?

I just did: a slope lacking both intelligent and self aware guiding a ball.

Having studied it for ages we can certainly make correct predictions every time.
Yet we still do not know if the ball and the slope were designed by intelligence or simply came about through random chance.

But we do know that intelligence is not required.

The question isn't that something which we can identify as being 'Random Chance' isn't part of a wider process.
Rather the question is about what we think of as "Random Chance" may not be that at all, but rather Natural Selection through Intelligent Process.

Why not just natural Selection without the Intelligent process bit?

First you must provide the answer to the question:

Q: Why call an example of "Random Chance" an example of "Natural Selection"?

Because it's not actually random and "random chance" is a misnomer? Not sure what you are getting at there.

Then we can look at how your answer would show the claim;...

• "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection"

...to be false. [/color]

Okay, you have my answer, walk me through the process of showing the above the statement to be false.

[William]

[Replying to post 17]


William: Which came first Intelligence or "Random Chance" cannot be determined by those within the universe.


Bust Nak: Or neither, nature came first?

William:
Presuming random chance accident?

• If Intelligence came through what appears to us to be "Random", we still cannot say with any certainty that at some point in the procedure the intelligence didn't take the helm and fire it up a notch into Natural Selection.
  
  Thus, the debate goes on...

Bust Nak: Okay, but we can say with certainty that intelligence is not required though.

William: Some believe that, and thus their certainty.
It has not been established as matter of fact, one way or the other, thus the debate goes on.

Certainly it appears that intelligence is required, otherwise why does it exist. Does it exist through Random Chance or Natural Selection is a question of which intelligence requires an answer.

One can state that intelligence is 'not required' if one is basing their premise on Random Chance.

• Can you give an example of something used for guidance which doesn't involve intelligence?

Bust Nak: I just did: a slope lacking both intelligent and self aware guiding a ball.

William: You have evidence that intelligence did not design the slope and the ball?

• Having studied it for ages we can certainly make correct predictions every time.
  Yet we still do not know if the ball and the slope were designed by intelligence or simply came about through random chance.

Bust Nak: But we do know that intelligence is not required.

William: No we do not. We can presume, believe or fail to acknowledge, but we do no KNOW "intelligence is not required".
Indeed, intelligence is even required in order for the slope and the ball to be understood in relation to each other, and for subsequent predictions to be undertaken.

• The question isn't that something which we can identify as being 'Random Chance' isn't part of a wider process.
  Rather the question is about what we think of as "Random Chance" may not be that at all, but rather Natural Selection through Intelligent Process.

Bust Nak: Why not just natural Selection without the Intelligent process bit?

William: Because Natural Selection is an intelligent process and it behooves us to include it into the equation as - at least - a possibility.
The idea that "intelligence is not required' stems from the position of those who do not wish to include that into the mix, because it infers Creation/Creator which is not part of the material they have built their platform from which to argue.

Science itself as a process does not show us we exist in a non-creation. That is a speculation based upon the premise that we do not. The evidence so far does not show us that with any certainty.
While the idea of a Creator is also a speculation, it is only one in which the theist is enabled to include rather than exclude.
Excluding it from the possibilities, does intelligence a disservice.

While we can agree that there should be logically no requirement for intelligence to exist within this universe as this universe should be able to exist without intelligence, we have to answer the difficult question as to why intelligence just so happens to be, and some answer 'random chance' and wash their hands at that point.

We also think it best to look at what intelligence is doing in this universe and whether it is the reason for why the idea of random chance evolved into the idea of Natural Selection, and what purpose intelligence has in relation to itself and the situation it is within and whether it is a case of a Creator or simply some kind of magical event which accidentally produced intelligence.

Intelligence can obviously work both sectors of the debate with equal finesse, which tells us that it is presently still thinking about the broader implications and hasn't made up its mind yet.

It is going in both (all) directions simultaneously.

More to the point, as an aspect of intelligence yourself, you will be aware that you have developed reason and purpose and - if not consciously - subconsciously, you will think yourself "required".

That is the way intelligence thinks about itself. Obviously it is going to continue to wonder if it were placed here and if the transition through the gooey mess of apparent "Random Chance" may have caused it to forget itself momentarily (relatively speaking) and then have to reboot in order to begin to take control of the situation...or take the situation in hand in more reasonable ways.

• Q: Why call an example of "Random Chance" an example of "Natural Selection"?

Bust Nak: Because it's not actually random and "random chance" is a misnomer? Not sure what you are getting at there.

William: If it be a misnomer then with the claim "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection" one can dispense with the idea of "Random Chance" as false and not required..whereas, since intelligence exists, we can at least make the allowance that intelligence was/is possibly required which is why it exists.
And from there we can deduce that the universe might well indeed be a Created Experience Simulation, intelligently designed for a purpose which involves said intelligence.

Bust Nak: Okay, you have my answer, walk me through the process of showing the above the statement to be false.

William: Was that your answer? I thought it was more of a question in itself.
Eitherway, the statement is shown at least to have a misnomer within its framework.
It has not been established that "Random Chance" is even an actual thing. The universe can simply give one that impression, if that is all one is focused upon looking for.

[Bust Nak]

Presuming random chance accident?

No. Hence the word "neither."

Certainly it appears that intelligence is required, otherwise why does it exist.

How does the existence of intelligence implies intelligence is required?

Does it exist through Random Chance or Natural Selection is a question of which intelligence requires an answer.

One can state that intelligence is 'not required' if one is basing their premise on Random Chance.

Or we can base our premise on naturalism?

You have evidence that intelligence did not design the slope and the ball?

No, but I have evidence that intelligence is not required.

No we do not. We can presume, believe or fail to acknowledge, but we do no KNOW "intelligence is not required".

Sure we do. Why presume otherwise?

Indeed, intelligence is even required in order for the slope and the ball to be understood in relation to each other, and for subsequent predictions to be undertaken.

Why would that help your thesis?

Because Natural Selection is an intelligent process and it behooves us to include it into the equation as - at least - a possibility.

You are not making any sense. Why would you even appeal to possibility in the same breath that you say it is intelligent process?

The idea that "intelligence is not required' stems from the position of those who do not wish to include that into the mix, because it infers Creation/Creator which is not part of the material they have built their platform from which to argue.

Well, there is no reason to include it into the mix if it is not required.

Science itself as a process does not show us we exist in a non-creation. That is a speculation based upon the premise that we do not. The evidence so far does not show us that with any certainty.

That's fine, we can't rule intelligence out, but the point is intelligence is not required.

While the idea of a Creator is also a speculation, it is only one in which the theist is enabled to include rather than exclude.
Excluding it from the possibilities, does intelligence a disservice.

You do see the difference between "not required" and "isn't," right?

While we can agree that there should be logically no requirement for intelligence to exist within this universe as this universe should be able to exist without intelligence, we have to answer the difficult question as to why intelligence just so happens to be, and some answer 'random chance' and wash their hands at that point.

See not seeing why you keep bringing up the existence of intelligence into the debate. Why would that help your case?

We also think it best to look at what intelligence is doing in this universe and whether it is the reason for why the idea of random chance evolved into the idea of Natural Selection, and what purpose intelligence has in relation to itself and the situation it is within and whether it is a case of a Creator or simply some kind of magical event which accidentally produced intelligence.

Or, it's just nature?

Intelligence can obviously work both sectors of the debate with equal finesse, which tells us that it is presently still thinking about the broader implications and hasn't made up its mind yet.

It is going in both (all) directions simultaneously.

Why go in all directions, if you reject the claim that intelligence is not required?

More to the point, as an aspect of intelligence yourself, you will be aware that you have developed reason and purpose and - if not consciously - subconsciously, you will think yourself "required".

Required for what exactly? I exist, that's all there is to it. If you are appealing to my "subconscious" then why would I be aware of it?

That is the way intelligence thinks about itself.

Not by my experience.

Obviously it is going to continue to wonder if it were placed here and if the transition through the gooey mess of apparent "Random Chance" may have caused it to forget itself momentarily (relatively speaking) and then have to reboot in order to begin to take control of the situation...or take the situation in hand in more reasonable ways.

Like natural selection without the intelligent process bit?

If it be a misnomer then with the claim "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection" one can dispense with the idea of "Random Chance" as false and not required..whereas, since intelligence exists, we can at least make the allowance that intelligence was/is possibly required which is why it exists.

What does "possibly require" mean, if not does not require?

And from there we can deduce that the universe might well indeed be a Created Experience Simulation, intelligently designed for a purpose which involves said intelligence.

What good are such deduction that begun with questionable premises?

Was that your answer?

We call an example of "Random Chance" an example of "Natural Selection" because the term Random Chance is a misnomer.

Eitherway, the statement is shown at least to have a misnomer within its framework. It has not been established that "Random Chance" is even an actual thing. The universe can simply give one that impression, if that is all one is focused upon looking for.

Right, hence the alternative, natural selection without the intelligent process bit.

[William]

[Replying to post 19]

Bust Nak: No. Hence the word "neither."

William: So then is this to say that intelligence and random chance are both unnatural? I am otherwise unsure of what you are trying to convey.

Bust Nak: How does the existence of intelligence implies intelligence is required?

William: The same way that water exists, implying water is required. I explained this in more detail further on in my previous post.

Bust Nak: Or we can base our premise on naturalism?

William: Not without explaining what naturalism is and how it came to be. Was it Random Chance or Natural Selection, and how does the answer to this affect the OP claim.

• You have evidence that intelligence did not design the slope and the ball?

Bust Nak: No

William: Then all you are doing is presuming the slope and ball were not designed.

Bust Nak: Why would you even appeal to possibility in the same breath that you say it is intelligent process?


William: Because the one reflects the other as a natural possibility.

Bust Nak: Well, there is no reason to include it into the mix if it is not required.

William: The idea that "intelligence is not required' stems from the position of those who do not wish to include that into the mix, because it infers Creation/Creator which is not part of the material they have built their platform from which to argue.

• Science itself as a process does not show us we exist in a non-creation. That is a speculation based upon the premise that we do not. The evidence so far does not show us that with any certainty.

Bust Nak: That's fine, we can't rule intelligence out

William: Indeed, that is the truth.

Bust Nak: but the point is intelligence is not required.

William: The idea that "intelligence is not required' stems from the position of those who do not wish to include that into the mix, because it infers Creation/Creator which is not part of the material they have built their platform from which to argue.

It is not a point that intelligence is not required. It is a belief.

• While the idea of a Creator is also a speculation, it is only one in which the theist is enabled to include rather than exclude.
  Excluding it from the possibilities, does intelligence a disservice.

Bust Nak: You do see the difference between "not required" and "isn't," right?

William: Of course. Why do you ask?

Bust Nak: See not seeing why you keep bringing up the existence of intelligence into the debate. Why would that help your case?

William: What case? I asked a question regarding the claim in the OP. I am still waiting for a clear answer on the matter.

Bust Nak: Or, it's just nature?

William: What do you mean 'nature' and has it anything to do with the claim that "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection"?

• Intelligence can obviously work both sectors of the debate with equal finesse, which tells us that it is presently still thinking about the broader implications and hasn't made up its mind yet.
  
  It is going in both (all) directions simultaneously.

Bust Nak: Why go in all directions, if you reject the claim that intelligence is not required?

William: I do not understand the relevance your question in relation to what I wrote.

• As an aspect of intelligence yourself, you will be aware that you have developed reason and purpose and - if not consciously - subconsciously, you will think yourself "required".

Bust Nak: Required for what exactly?

William: For whatever it is that you feel required to do as well as for what circumstance requires you do.

Bust Nak: I exist, that's all there is to it.

William: Not so. Even if you were just a brain in a jar thinking you are experiencing being human, there is obviously more to it than just being a brain in a jar.

Bust Nak: If you are appealing to my "subconscious" then why would I be aware of it?

William: Clearly I said "if not consciously - subconsciously, you will think yourself "required"" implying that there is more to who you are than simply what you consciously think yourself to being.

• More to the point, as an aspect of intelligence yourself, you will be aware that you have developed reason and purpose and - if not consciously - subconsciously, you will think yourself "required".
  
  That is the way intelligence thinks about itself.

Bust Nak: Not by my experience.

William: Be that as it may, obviously other people have a different experience and may do so because they are open to the idea that we exist within a Creation implying a Creator.
That is why I made the observation;

• The idea that "intelligence is not required' stems from the position of those who do not wish to include that into the mix, because it infers Creation/Creator which is not part of the material they have built their platform from which to argue.

Bust Nak: What does "possibly require" mean, if not does not require?

William:

• If it be a misnomer then with the claim "Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection" one can dispense with the idea of "Random Chance" as false and not required..whereas, since intelligence exists, we can at least make the allowance that intelligence was/is possibly required which is why it exists.

If you are saying that "possibly required" and "Not required" mean the same thing, please show how.

• From there we can deduce that the universe might well indeed be a Created Experience Simulation, intelligently designed for a purpose which involves said intelligence.

Bust Nak: What good are such deduction that begun with questionable premises?

William: Before we can have an answer to that, it must first be established that the premise is doubtful in regard to truth or validity.
Since no such evidence exists to show the premise is doubtful, it is open to intelligent investigation.

Bust Nak: We call an example of "Random Chance" an example of "Natural Selection" because the term Random Chance is a misnomer.

William: Exactly why is the term "Random Chance" a wrong or inaccurate designation?

• Eitherway, the statement is shown at least to have a misnomer within its framework. It has not been established that "Random Chance" is even an actual thing. The universe can simply give one that impression, if that is all one is focused upon looking for.

Bust Nak: Right, hence the alternative, natural selection without the intelligent process bit.

William: Again, the designation remains inaccurate because selection infers intelligence, and examining nature we clearly see intelligence at work therein.
So when we do away the the 'intelligent process bit' it is only because we do not acknowledge its part in the natural bit.
When this occurs, one may as well just say it is all 'Random Chance'.