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".

[Tiberius47]

[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".

There are plenty of processes that produce ordered outcomes but are not influenced by any kind of intelligent entity.

Why do you think that all the crappy unpopped popcorns are always at the bottom of the bag? Because as the bag is moved, the popcorn kernels move around and gaps open up between them. This lets the smaller bits fall through (such as the unpopped kernels), but the larger bits - the popped kernels - don't have the room to get through. So the unpopped bits gradually move to the bottom. This requires nothing more than random movement.

Similarly, a wind blowing in the desert sorts grains of sand according to size, as the smaller, lighter grains will be blown further than larger heavier grains. Again, this does not require any intelligent action, but produces an ordered result.

[Divine Insight]

"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".

No not at all. This kind of thinking stems from a lack of knowledge of how natural selection works.

Tiberius47 gave a couple examples of how natural selection works without any need for any intelligent agents to be involved. Evolution does not make "natural selections" but rather natural selections are forced onto any evolving entity by the nature of the environment in which they are evolving.

So it's not "random" since the environment has consistent properties and is itself therefore not random. Yet there is no intelligence required.

So there is no need for any intelligent or conscious entity to be "guiding" anything.

It's basically no different from falling off a cliff. When you fall off a cliff there's nothing random about what will happen. You will fall downward toward the source of gravity. Period.

There is no need for an intelligent agent "guiding" your fall.

Evolution is the same type of thing. Evolution is "guided" by the natural laws of physics and the immediate environmental factors. Nothing else is required.

And because there are immediate environmental factors involved, it's not random. Just as you don't randomly fall up instead of down. You always fall down. It's a natural result of the environment in which you find yourself, and there is nothing random about it.

Any theistic ideas that a designing intentional creator is required for evolution do nothing more than display an ignorance of how evolution actually works.

There is no need for an intentional conscious designer in the evolutionary process.

[William]

[Replying to post 2 ]

Tiberius47: There are plenty of processes that produce ordered outcomes but are not influenced by any kind of intelligent entity.

William: Natural Selection doesn't appear to be one without intelligent purposefulness.

Can you show us how some of these natural processes work which are not influenced
by some kind of intelligent entity?

Tiberius47: Why do you think that all the crappy unpopped popcorns are always at the bottom of the bag? Because as the bag is moved, the popcorn kernels move around and gaps open up between them. This lets the smaller bits fall through (such as the unpopped kernels), but the larger bits - the popped kernels - don't have the room to get through. So the unpopped bits gradually move to the bottom. This requires nothing more than random movement.

William: Is that an accurate analogy of Natural Selection?
Did the corn pop itself into the bag? Did the bag magically pop into existence and offer itself as a container for the popped and unpopped kernels?
Did the popped kernels randomly pop themselves?

Tiberius47: Similarly, a wind blowing in the desert sorts grains of sand according to size, as the smaller, lighter grains will be blown further than larger heavier grains. Again, this does not require any intelligent action, but produces an ordered result.

William: The sand remains sand. Meanwhile biological life in it's complexity has become something else than what it began. How is that the result of a random mindless act accidentally producing an ordered result of such intelligent complexity, you haven't explained.
Why call it "Natural Selection" if it is just Random Chance?

[William]

William: Also about the wind as an analogy for the process of natural selection, the wind could blow the grains of sand and mix them back together and that gives us a better description of random chance rather than natural selection.
The wind alone, isn't sorting the grains into gradients. There are other variables which allow for the process to occur.

But the analogy of the wind and sand cannot so easily be used to explain the complexity of biological evolution. To do so would be akin to claiming that the wind alone created the Great Pyramid.

Random chance did not create the complexity. Natural Selection is an intelligent process.

[Purple Knight]

William: The sand remains sand. Meanwhile biological life in it's complexity has become something else than what it began. How is that the result of a random mindless act accidentally producing an ordered result of such intelligent complexity, you haven't explained.
Why call it "Natural Selection" if it is just Random Chance?

Just as the lighter, popped corn nibleys rise to the surface, the organisms more able to live in their surroundings, do so. The organisms less able to live in their surroundings... don't, at least not as much.

Let's say I'm going to roll a d20 and generate traits for an organism. If you have a d20, please pick an environment (domestication, water, land, or desert) then roll your d20 twenty times. I'll wait. Here's the list.

1. Organism vomits up everything it eats, can't eat, dead organism (unless it's a cat, in which case this is just natural for it).
2. No legs, organism can't move and must be fed by humans to survive.
3. No brain, organism is a permanent vegetable.
4. Organism can't move as well, +50% chance to be eaten.
5. Poor metabolism, organism needs +20% energy to survive.
6. Ugliness, organism won't breed unless in captivity.
7. Loud, organism makes a lot of unpleasant noise.
8. Lost, organism gets lost easily.
9. Touching water poisons the organism.
10. Heat Adaptation, organism is 50% smaller, but eliminates all penalties for desert
11. Fast growing, organism grows 50% faster but its stomach is always full of compacted, dense material and it sinks in water.
12. Dense fur, -50% speed in water, gains energy conservation on land (except desert).
13. Friendly, organism is good in colonies or in domestication, but may easily be predated where a lot of large predators exist.
14. Less offspring, organism makes only 1/3 the offspring.
15. Webbed Feet, -50% speed on land, +200% speed in water.
16. Intelligence, organism is slightly smarter.
17. Speed, organism is slightly faster.
18. Beauty, all other organisms preferentially mate with this one.
19. Efficiency, organism needs 20% less energy to survive.
20. Super power such as shooting electricity or flight.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 5 by William]

William: Natural Selection doesn't appear to be one without intelligent purposefulness.

Can you show us how some of these natural processes work which are not influenced
by some kind of intelligent entity?

William: Random chance did not create the complexity. Natural Selection is an intelligent process.

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. The first is currently unknown but there are hypotheses on how the first cells may have developed. The process of natural selection has been quite thoroughly explained.

Let’s say we want to breed a high yielding, nutritious variety of a grain such as wheat. We can sow seed of the wheat we have and observe the outcome in a field of mature plants. We may find some that are a bit better in terms of our goals compared with all the others. We select those plants to harvest and sow only those seeds for the next crop. Once again we observe the outcome and similarly select those plants which satisfy our goals. This process may involve many generations before we reach our goal, but we also may not. This is selection at work but it is not the same as natural selection.

For a start, with natural selection there is no ultimate goal. The selection process is also not intelligently driven. Selection in this case is driven by environmental factors. In a population of organisms there may arise a few individuals with slight differences from the rest. The differences may give those individuals a slightly better survival rate in the environment they occupy. If this is the case they can pass on their traits to the next generation imparting similar advantages to their offspring. Over time, the trait will become predominant in the population of that organism. And so it continues. The important thing to note is that any change in environmental factors may result in the inherited characteristic no longer being advantageous. Some other characteristic may offer a better survival rate. Hence we see many organisms becoming extinct and currently being threatened with extinction because of changes to their environment such as climate and human impact. There is no ultimate goal involved in any of this and the driving factor for selection is the environment, not some intelligence at work.

[Diagoras]

Given Natural Selection is shown through science to be guiding evolution,...

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

If there are any that you consider to be strong evidence for an intelligently guided or designed process, let us all know. Then we can check if perhaps there’s an alternate explanation relying only on environmental conditions.

[William]

The Claim:

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

The Question:

William: Q:. What is the difference?


[Replying to post 8 ]

William:Given Natural Selection 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.

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

William: As can be seen, the claim was made by bluegreenearth that the process of Natural Selection was not random chance.
The OP Question asks "What is the difference?"
There are already plenty of scientific explanations which example evolution through Natural Selection.
Do you believe random chance is the same as Natural Selection?

I have already given my initial response to the claim. If you want to address those particular points I made, I am happy to discuss them.

[William]

[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.