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]

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.

The idea is that there are three alternatives instead of two.

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

That doesn't help. How does the fact that water exists, implying water is required?

Not without explaining what naturalism is and how it came to be.

It simply is.

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

Which is the best presumption to go with according to the principle of parsimony.

Because the one reflects the other as a natural possibility.

Explain it some more. I still don't get it. Lets say it's currently raining outside. Why would I bring up the fact that the weather man said there is 80% chance of rain, when I can just say, look here, it's raining?

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.

We are going round in circle: there is no reason to include it into the mix if it is not required.

Of course. Why do you ask?

Because time and time again, you seem to be addressing the latter (science doesn't show that God isn't) and not the former (science does show that God isn't required.)

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

]
That natural selection implies intelligence.

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"?

I mean natural selection without the intelligence bit.

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

Why do you even care to explore alternatives, when you are so sure that intelligence is the cause?

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

Something along the lines of intelligence is required for me to type this post? That doesn't seem to have much to do with this discussion.

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.

Like what?

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.

Not sure how that answers my question. Things outside of what I consciously think, I would not be aware of, right? Awareness is a function of conscious thought, no?

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.

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

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

If you can envisage how things could possibly work without requiring a god, then god is not required.

Before we can have an answer to that, it must first be established that the premise is doubtful in regard to truth or validity.

Sure. Easy enough, start here: selection does not imply intelligence.

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

Because it's not random.

Again, the designation remains inaccurate because selection infers intelligence

No it does not, see natural selection as a counter-example.

[William]

[Replying to post 21]

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: The idea is that there are three alternatives instead of two.

William: Your habit of one line replies are unhelpful as they provide little in the way of useful/helpful information which can add to an intelligent discussion.
Are you willing to flesh-out your replies with some elaboration...

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

Bust Nak: How does the fact that water exists, implying water is required?

William: How can intelligence come forth, if water is not required?

Bust Nak: It simply is.

William: Intelligence also is. Nature as a mindless process has no opinion - simple or complicated - on itself.
Intelligence understands things of matter, as more than that. Intelligence has the ability to understand itself and the nature it is experiencing, without conflating the two as 'Mindless' nor for that matter, assumes Nature 'simple is' anything but conscious and self aware.

Bust Nak: Which is the best presumption to go with according to the principle of parsimony.

William: Occum's razor wasn't meant to be used to hack and slash.
Think more in terms of AI-type surgical precision. This applies to all things universal.
First we have to learn not be be simply apes about town, then we can use the razor effectively.
Trying to give the universe a lobotomy with the Ax of Naturalism/Natural Science and pretend the ax is a razor, doth not maketh thee an Scientist.

Perhaps a scalpel is not the required tool for the job of uncovering what is hidden to the ordinary senses.

Bust Nak: Lets say it's currently raining outside. Why would I bring up the fact that the weather man said there is 80% chance of rain, when I can just say, look here, it's raining?

William: I don't see any connect with you question. I think it is because your style of reply isn't making a clear enough picture in which I can examine and join the dots.
I can not make heads or tails of it.

You appear to me to be saying, "you don't need a weather-man to know which way the wind blows" while I am saying "The answer my friend is blowing in the wind."

"It is what it is" doesn't really say much other than to grunt and point at something.

In examining it, are there any apparent clues which might assist intelligence with the "why is it?" and "Why am I experiencing it?" questions.
Not only is intelligence apparently required within it, but intelligence naturally enough wants to know why, and "it just is" isn't overly helpful to supporting that process.

Bust Nak: We are going round in circle: there is no reason to include it into the mix if it is not required.

William: When one learns to accept that it is required, one stops going around in circles or even sitting there starring at a wall.
If you can explain why intelligence exists if it isn't required - why intelligence exists in a universe where it is not required, then perhaps your claim that it isn't required might be seen to have some merit.

I am saying that since intelligence is present, one may as well examine the idea that it is therefore required.
The idea itself does not lead one to 'go around in circles' or only have a wall to stare at.

Bust Nak: You seem to be addressing the latter (science doesn't show that God isn't) and not the former (science does show that God isn't required.)

William: I continue to address the idea that we possibly exist within a Creation.
Obviously the universe is required for that to appear to be the case, but I have addressed the fact that there is no Science which has shown that we do not exist within a Creation.

Until science does show that a Creator is not required, we cannot assume we are not living in a creation.
I have been shown no evidence supporting that a Creator isn't required if we are indeed experiencing a Creation.
The evidence available only shows that we very well could be, but the evidence can be interpreted through filters set up before the information is processed by individual.

You appear to be arguing from the platform which believes the evidence shows that we do not exist within a Creation, so you will have filters in place which allow for you to claim that the universe come about without a Creator.
You have no evidence to support that claim. What you have is an interpretation of the evidence which allows for you to believe the claim is true.

Bust Nak: As opposed to the idea that "intelligence is not required" stems from the position of those who wish to include that into the mix, because it infers Creation/Creator which is part of the material they have built their platform from which to argue?

William: Yes.
We have gone into the shallows so at least are not standing on the shore in relation to the OP question.
It appears that you agree with the claim that the universe is not the result of any random chance, but on the other hand it appears that you believe that Natural Selection is still a random thing, even that the chance aspect has less to do with ongoing current process of evolution.

[Bust Nak]

Your habit of one line replies are unhelpful as they provide little in the way of useful/helpful information which can add to an intelligent discussion.
Are you willing to flesh-out your replies with some elaboration...

I don't really know how to. It's just trivial to me; You suggested random chance and natural selection with intelligent design were the only two options. I offered a third natural selection without intelligent design.

How can intelligence come forth, if water is not required?

Don't know.

Intelligence also is.

Then why were you expecting an explanation for intelligence?

Nature as a mindless process has no opinion - simple or complicated - on itself.
Intelligence understands things of matter, as more than that. Intelligence has the ability to understand itself and the nature it is experiencing, without conflating the two as 'Mindless' nor for that matter, assumes Nature 'simple is' anything but conscious and self aware.

So what?

Occum's razor wasn't meant to be used to hack and slash.
Think more in terms of AI-type surgical precision. This applies to all things universal.
First we have to learn not be be simply apes about town, then we can use the razor effectively.
Trying to give the universe a lobotomy with the Ax of Naturalism/Natural Science and pretend the ax is a razor, doth not maketh thee an Scientist.

On the contrary, the only way to be a scientist is to adopt naturalism, as stated by one of my favorite quote: "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin.

I don't see any connect with you question. I think it is because your style of reply isn't making a clear enough picture in which I can examine and join the dots.
I can not make heads or tails of it.

You appear to me to be saying, "you don't need a weather-man to know which way the wind blows" while I am saying "The answer my friend is blowing in the wind."

Was it? You mentioned probability in your last answer. "The answer my friend is blowing in the wind" says nothing of probability.

"It is what it is" doesn't really say much other than to grunt and point at something.

And that's all you need to do if you have something to point to. You only need to invoke probability when you have to guess without something to simply point to.

In examining it, are there any apparent clues which might assist intelligence with the "why is it?" and "Why am I experiencing it?" questions.
Not only is intelligence apparently required within it, but intelligence naturally enough wants to know why, and "it just is" isn't overly helpful to supporting that process.

"Why" doesn't matter until we sort out what is and isn't.

When one learns to accept that it is required, one stops going around in circles or even sitting there starring at a wall.

So all you have to do is reject that it is required.

If you can explain why intelligence exists if it isn't required - why intelligence exists in a universe where it is not required, then perhaps your claim that it isn't required might be seen to have some merit.

That's where evolution comes in.

I am saying that since intelligence is present, one may as well examine the idea that it is therefore required.
The idea itself does not lead one to 'go around in circles' or only have a wall to stare at.

Why?

I continue to address the idea that we possibly exist within a Creation.
Obviously the universe is required for that to appear to be the case, but I have addressed the fact that there is no Science which has shown that we do not exist within a Creation.

Until science does show that a Creator is not required, we cannot assume we are not living in a creation.

Again, we don't need to reject the assumption that we are not living in a creation, that premise is irrelevant. Hence my charge that you are mixing "what is and isn't" up with "what is and isn't required up." You respond here doesn't change my impression of what you are doing.

I have been shown no evidence supporting that a Creator isn't required if we are indeed experiencing a Creation.

That's completely moot without first establishing that we are experiencing a Creation.

The evidence available only shows that we very well could be, but the evidence can be interpreted through filters set up before the information is processed by individual.

You appear to be arguing from the platform which believes the evidence shows that we do not exist within a Creation...

No, I was very clear about that - the evidence shows that we need not exist within a Creation. We have evidence to support that much.

...on the other hand it appears that you believe that Natural Selection is still a random thing...

No no no. It's not random, nor intelligent design.

[William]

[Replying to post 23]

Bust Nak: I offered a third natural selection without intelligent design.

William: One has to ignore the intelligence most obviously noticeable in the process of natural selection.

Bust Nak: why were you expecting an explanation for intelligence?

William: It is the intelligent thing to do. It is what intelligence does.

• Occum's razor wasn't meant to be used to hack and slash.
  Think more in terms of AI-type surgical precision. This applies to all things universal.
  First we have to learn not be be simply apes about town, then we can use the razor effectively.
  Trying to give the universe a lobotomy with the Ax of Naturalism/Natural Science and pretend the ax is a razor, doth not maketh thee an Scientist.

Bust Nak: "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin.

William: So hack and slash prevents that. As I wrote earlier;

• 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.

By ignoring the intelligence prevalent in the process of the selection nature is involved with, one can indeed pretend one is not existing within a creation, but just something which by some mindless accident happened to occur.

Bust Nak: You only need to invoke probability when you have to guess without something to simply point to.

William: As I continue to state. The evidence being pointed to can be interpreted to have intelligence guiding its progress. One points to the probability of the unseen, based upon examining that which is seen.

• In examining it, are there any apparent clues which might assist intelligence with the "why is it?" and "Why am I experiencing it?" questions.
  Not only is intelligence apparently required within it, but intelligence naturally enough wants to know why, and "it just is" isn't overly helpful to supporting that process.

Bust Nak: "Why" doesn't matter until we sort out what is and isn't.

William: Another example of hack and slash.
"Why doesn't matter" when one's will is influenced by the understanding that "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

• When one learns to accept that it is required, one stops going around in circles or even sitting there starring at a wall.

Bust Nak: So all you have to do is reject that it is required.

William: If the rejection is helpful in maintaining one's efforts to keep the Divine Foot out, one has to of course not acknowledge the intelligence involved within the process through belief that the process is not one of intelligence.

In that case, the answer to the OPQ in relation to that position has to be. Natural Selection is the process of Random Chance and intelligence has nothing to do with it, because the process a is mindless one.

• I have been shown no evidence supporting that a Creator isn't required if we are indeed experiencing a Creation.

Bust Nak: That's completely moot without first establishing that we are experiencing a Creation.

William: That's completely moot when scientists such as Richard Lewontin are advising "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".

Have you ever stood back for a moment and examined the words you quoted from Richard Lewontin. They are no different from the type of fervent religiosity one can expect from the pulpit.

• You appear to be arguing from the platform which believes the evidence shows that we do not exist within a Creation...

Bust Nak: No, I was very clear about that - the evidence shows that we need not exist within a Creation. We have evidence to support that much.

William: No you do not. What you have is a catch phrase which allows you to believe "we need not exist within a creation" and therefore "we need not take it any further than to that point."
This because, to do so invites the divine foot in the door.

Bust Nak: No no no. It's not random, nor intelligent design.

William: I agree Natural Selection is not random. I see why you believe it is not intelligent.

Thank you for the interaction Bust Nak. I do not think we can take this any further now it is established what motivates the materialist to fervently deny the obvious.

[Purple Knight]

Then why were you expecting an explanation for intelligence?

Well he should, technically, but the explanation of it is the same as any other trait: It helps its bearer survive.

Animals that need it have it in spades. Rats are a good example, since they are scavengers that must think about their next meal and compare the effectiveness of different methods of searching for food.

Animals that don't, not so much. A cow eats grass. That's all it does. Consequently, even though it has a bigger body, and a bigger brain, it has less raw intelligence than the rat. You can still teach them tricks, though.

A brain is an amazing thing that qualifies as a miracle if anything does, but you can go all the way down to very simple nerve systems that are basically just levers and pulleys.


The Cnidaria nervous system is simple. They have no brains. Instead of a central nervous system they have nerve nets, which are made up of sensory neurons. These neurons react to different stimuli with signals that cause other neurons to send other signals, like motor neurons that contract muscles. The cilia found in their neurons detects physical contact. These systems of web like neurons are necessary for the organisms coordination, movement, and reactions to certain odors that are vital for survival.

[Bust Nak]

Well he should, technically, but the explanation of it is the same as any other trait: It helps its bearer survive.

Sure, but William said intelligence "just is." If intelligence is "just is" then there is no explanation.

[Bust Nak]

One has to ignore the intelligence most obviously noticeable in the process of natural selection.

That's an easy task given how the "most obviously noticeable" is not noticeable at all.

It is the intelligent thing to do. It is what intelligence does.

Sure, but it is also contradictory thing to do given what you said earlier.

So hack and slash prevents that. As I wrote earlier;

• 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.

I don't know why you would keep bringing that up: One would expect no less from people dedicated to finding the verifiable truth via the scientific method. It's the gold standard.

By ignoring the intelligence prevalent in the process of the selection nature is involved with, one can indeed pretend one is not existing within a creation, but just something which by some mindless accident happened to occur.

First you have to establish that we are existing within a creation before you get to say there is any pretence that we are not.

As I continue to state. The evidence being pointed to can be interpreted to have intelligence guiding its progress. One points to the probability of the unseen, based upon examining that which is seen.

So you are saying after the evidence is interpreted as intelligence guidance, you still not quite sure it is intelligence guidance? This is exactly where Occam's razor comes in.

Another example of hack and slash.
"Why doesn't matter" when one's will is influenced by the understanding that "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If that's hack and slash, then there is nothing wrong with hack and slash. Occam's razor was meant to be used for exactly this sort of hack and slash.

If the rejection is helpful in maintaining one's efforts to keep the Divine Foot out, one has to of course not acknowledge the intelligence involved within the process through belief that the process is not one of intelligence.

Not seeing what that adds to the discussion, it's leading to the same conclusion: So all you have to do is reject that it is required.

In that case, the answer to the OPQ in relation to that position has to be. Natural Selection is the process of Random Chance and intelligence has nothing to do with it, because the process a is mindless one.

Why does it have to be this when there is a better one: Natural Selection is not the process of Random Chance nor intelligence?

That's completely moot when scientists such as Richard Lewontin are advising "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".

Have you ever stood back for a moment and examined the words you quoted from Richard Lewontin. They are no different from the type of fervent religiosity one can expect from the pulpit.

Not so. They are the polar opposite: The religious starts with the conclusion and find things to support it; scientists like Lewontin start with data and go where the evidence leads. Priests resolve their differences by the number of followers they can mobilise; scientists resolve their differences by doing experiments.

No you do not.

Incorrect, again, see evolution.

Thank you for the interaction Bust Nak. I do not think we can take this any further now it is established what motivates the materialist to fervently deny the obvious.

Credit where it is due, it's not just us materialists, many theists are also motivates by this devotion to finding the verifiable truth to "deny the obvious" and not allow a Divine Foot in the door. That's what makes them scientists.

[EarthScienceguy]

Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection

This is would be Lamarckiansm.

[Difflugia]

This is would be Lamarckiansm.

No. Natural selection isn't a mechanism of Lamarckian evolution.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 29 by Difflugia]

No. Natural selection isn't a mechanism of Lamarckian evolution.

Are you trying to communicate the idea that mutations do not happen randomly? If mutations do not happen randomly the mechanisms would have to be defined as Lamarckian.

If the past is the key to present like Lydell's assumption states, then the Cambrian explosion is an impossibility for evolution.

Let's look at the so-called answer to "Darwin's Dilemma." The evolutionist calculated the rate at which change had to occur and discovered that it was only 4 to 5 times faster than the rest of the Phanerozoic. I guess we can forget about Lydell's assumption here.

I guess we can also forget about Lydell's assumption with regard to the type of mutations. Today for every so-called "Beneficial mutation" there would be thousands of harmful mutations accumulated. If this solution is trying to communicate that mutations during this time happen faster then so would the number deleterious mutations.

But what the hey right. We know the end. All we need to do is write a story of life with the end in mind. Or as DrNoGod's likes to say "just start with the conclusion in mind and make it fit." That is what evolution does.