What is “Chance” in Atheistic Evolution?

[An Observer]

Theory of Evolution is pushed in the schools as the only logical explanation for how things are! The Atheistic version of the theory consists of two steps:
1) The theory presupposes that mutations happen randomly (or by chance).
2) The theory asserts that natural selection is the mechanism by which survival of species determined.

Most educated scientists accept step 2, …. “natural selection” as the means by which species survival is determined.

However, most proponents of Atheistic evolution either ignore step 1, or they assert that a random distribution causes the events.

I assert that a distribution (chance, random or otherwise) cannot cause an event. I further assert that the distribution is the observed result of multiple independent events.

The question I place before my atheistic friends:

What is the meaning of the common phrases used in grade school science books on evolution....i.e. “it was a random event”, and “it happened by chance”?

[Yarr the Pirate]

Are you ever going to answer my question or are you just going to keep falling back on creationist buzzwords that make absolutely no sense to the discussion at hand?

Let me sum up these last couple of posts so you can understand how you are actively dodging my question.

Me: YEC, how does a negative mutation destroy an entire species when that is the exact opposite of what natural selection predicts?

YEC: Mutations don't affect genes!

Me: Actually, yes they do - how does a negative mutation destroy an entire species when that is the exact opposite of what natural selection predicts?

YEC: Have you ever heard of micro-evolution and macro-evolution?


Simply put, YEC - either answer my question by backing up your claim, or forfeit. Don't sigh, dont whine, dont piss around - you've got your back up against a wall, you know it, and it's nobody's fault but your own. Now put up or shut up.

[gluadys]

It's kinda obvious, sheeze....if that particular species has the magic mutation and all his offspring contains this magic mutation and the other six billion don't..according to you this particular fellow will be the one selected and not the six billion others....see, it starts all over.

Not according to me, nor according to the ToE.

If that mutation is harmful to the species, that particular fellow will not reproduce successfully. That is how natural selection protects the species from harmful mutations.

When a mutation is harmful to the species, it selects the 6 billion without the mutation, not the one fellow with the mutation.

Now that you have that info----back to Yarr's question.

[YEC]

Maybe we should say it this way...prove a mutations will get selected, passed along to its future offspring, then get selected again and once again passed along...

I've already shown how it can't...now time for you to prove it can.

If this theory is so workable, you should have no problem.


i'll be waiting.

[Yarr the Pirate]

If you've already proven it why can't you just answer my question?

I'll take your continuted dodging of my question as a delay on your part, and I don't think I have to, or anyone else expects me to explain natural selection to you, but if it'll shut you up:

A positive mutation is acquired, let's say a slightly longer neck - this allows the individual to reach harder to acquire food. Since he is healthier, he reproduces more often. As the low-lying food becomes harder to find, he and his offspring are favored, and a longer-necked creature is the result.

Anyway, now that I've answered your third digression, will you PLEASE answer my question?

If you DO NOT answer my question about your scenario which goes completely against natural selection, you forfeit this debate on grounds of your own total ignorance.

[Nyril]

It's kinda obvious, sheeze....if that particular species has the magic mutation and all his offspring contains this magic mutation and the other six billion don't..according to you this particular fellow will be the one selected and not the six billion others....see, it starts all over.

Strawman.

yarr...beak size is not dependent on a mutation.

The beak size is produced from the already established gene pool...no mutations.

But then again you already knew that...right yarr?

Yarr said that a mutation made the beak too small to be useful. You then proceed to attack something entirely different. Strawman.

yarr...you do know the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolutionism?

From reading your post I'm not quite sure if you have heard of those two terms.

Although my tone is bringing me increasingly closer to violating forum rule #1, I'm not entirely certain you've read a thing about evolution that actually was an accurate description of it.

Maybe we should say it this way...prove a mutations will get selected, passed along to its future offspring, then get selected again and once again passed along...

Easy. Superbacteria, the critters that are resistant to our anti-biotics because only the ones that aren't killed reproduce.

Here's another: wolves. Start with a wolf, get several hundred dog breeds we made by breeding certain traits.

If this theory is so workable, you should have no problem.

And I didn't.

[YEC]

Yarr, before we discuss this topic any further you need to let me know if you understand the differance between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

This is the second time I jave asked this question to you with you failing to present an answer the first time around.

I'm not trying to put you down in anyway by asking you if you know..but I realize that if you don't then you need to know the differance if you want to continue this dialog.
Fom your post it appears that you don't understand the differance...I'm just trying to help.

[YEC]

yarr posted the following:
A positive mutation is acquired, let's say a slightly longer neck - this allows the individual to reach harder to acquire food. Since he is healthier, he reproduces more often. As the low-lying food becomes harder to find, he and his offspring are favored, and a longer-necked creature is the result.

In your scenario, just how much longer is this guys neck?
Was it caused by a mutation or a different set of all ready established genes in the individuals parents gene pool?

But back to my question....how much longer is this guys neck?
What is he reaching for?
How does being just a tad bit healthier allow an animal to reproduce more?

All these issues you talk of seems to be speculation. Do you have any references that dmonstrate what you are saying?

I ask that because many evos say stuff because they think it sounds...right...never really showing us that it really is right. Some call it rhetoric, while other call it speculative assumptions passed off as fact.

[YEC]

nyril posted:
Here's another: wolves. Start with a wolf, get several hundred dog breeds we made by breeding certain traits.


Are all of these diifferent dogs a product of mutations?

For some reason the evos on this board seem to be getting micro and macro evolutionism confused.

[gluadys]

nyril posted:
Here's another: wolves. Start with a wolf, get several hundred dog breeds we made by breeding certain traits.


Are all of these diifferent dogs a product of mutations?

Yes. Human breeders chose the mutations they wanted to preserve.

[gluadys]

Maybe we should say it this way...prove a mutations will get selected, passed along to its future offspring, then get selected again and once again passed along...

I've already shown how it can't...now time for you to prove it can.

If this theory is so workable, you should have no problem.


i'll be waiting.

Ever study genetics, YEC? You know about Mendel's peas? If you understand genetics, it's easy to show how beneficial mutations are preserved and spread through a species.