tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post1882729971117938109..comments2024-03-27T00:26:19.644+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: Why Evolution Is Not Random.Rosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-50923509942404145222018-04-10T05:13:42.110+01:002018-04-10T05:13:42.110+01:00No. Since more brown buttons would survive, the b...No. Since more brown buttons would survive, the brown trait is MORE desirable from the point of view of button survival.<br /><br />Had you understood the very basics of evolution you would not have made that silly, basic mistake. But now you've learned something, eh?<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-86055048136111452222018-04-10T05:06:32.571+01:002018-04-10T05:06:32.571+01:00You inverted the selection bias. In your thought e...You inverted the selection bias. In your thought experiment you made it more likely that an undesirable trait would be selected for survival.<br /><br />1. A newly mutated trait is likely to be undesirable with a very high probability (you acknowledged this by indicating that your brown buttons were less desirable).<br />2. However, the nature of your selector made it more likely for these undesirables to permeate the population, not less likely.<br />3. A more realistic selector in this situation would look at the population and discard any buttons that were displeasing.<br /><br />The burden for evolutionists must be to **{show that a specific and observable mutation results in a more desirable trait}**. Anything else is wishing thinking on par with believing in a bearded, cloud wreathed individual. No one is pretending that such a requirement is not difficult, it most certainly is, but it is the necessary test.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, creationists and evolutionists are all in the same imaginary boat. Creationists wish away the initial cause to a omnipotent and unknowable deity. Evolutionists wish away the first cell to random assembly.<br /><br />Evolutionists who expect to be able to counter creationists must be a special kind of obtuse. There is no logical fault in the Creationist position. This means that even if an evolutionist could **{demonstrate a viable cell manifesting itself from a pool of organic molecules of mixed chirality}**; the creationists will simply claim THAT process to be the will of God and burrow deeper into the realm of molecular structures for obfuscation. That doesn't mean that the general creationist position is admirable in any way. It exists as an abnegation of responsibility to look deeper and examine further. At each furthering of knowledge, creationists walk their barricades back only as far as they must.<br /><br />Passionate evolutionists are ignorantly fighting the nature of Science, and creationists in turn are using the known nature of Science to properly refute them. That this offends so many evolutionists is a poor reflection on them, not the creationists.<br />Sunwukonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05400048388036313649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-77372168743839156492014-07-30T19:23:33.050+01:002014-07-30T19:23:33.050+01:00You're a full-fledged messenger of scientific ...You're a full-fledged messenger of scientific especially biological/evolutionary, knowlege, Rosa. <br /><br />Here's another way of looking at the phenomenon called evolution: http://theconversation.com/go-with-the-flow-and-youll-find-evolution-belongs-to-physics-29453 . In that article it's argued that evolution in the first place is a physical phenomenon, not a biological one. That is, evolution in technology is the same as the evolution of a biological species. <br /><br />As usual a quote: Evolution is about facilitating flow, the movement of one thing over or past another. Flow systems, the designs created by this evolutionary process, change freely over time. As such, evolution is a physical phenomenon, not just a biological one. The changing organisational structures that facilitate greater and better flow are physical objects, whether animate or inanimate.<br /><br />Also that way to look at evolution will lead to the conclusion that this phenomenon can.t be a fully random process. For who would buy for example an expensive television set from the black/white period if there are much cheaper color TV devices to choose? *a so-called rhetorical question*Helmer von Helvetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02136543309048013677noreply@blogger.com