Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, November 08, 2010

Blind, Undirected (chemical) Processes Revisited

-
The evotardgasms are reaching monumental proportions.

First I was told I was wrong by saying evolution is an accumulation of genetic accidents.

So I provided the references that support what I said and the evotards just seem to quiet down for a while. But they never acknowledge their mistake.

Oh well.

Now it appears those evotards are back into evotardgasm form when I mention "blind, undirected chemical processes" as being the proposed mechanism of evolution.

So here is the evolutionary references to support my claim:

Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models
in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49:
Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively blind, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement. page 4 (bold added)


Then we have:
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”


and:

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UCBerkley


From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10


The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro


What Causes Mutations?:
Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals


2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

Causes of Mutations:
1. DNA fails to copy accurately
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.


2. External influences can create mutations
Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.


DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:
DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)


And finally:

The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative

September 9, 2005
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.


IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.

And that is beyond pathetic...

38 Comments:

  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Cancer is also an accumulation of genetic accidents. You also need teh selection component to accurately portray evolution - and I don't knwo how many times you've been told RM & NS is a strawman, but one more time, yo see if it can sink in.

    http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Cancer is also an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    I know, so what?

    Rich:
    You also need teh selection component to accurately portray evolution-

    Gee whiz asshole I talked about selection in the OP.

    Also when I say "an accumulation of egentic accidents" the word "accumulation" takes care of ALL selection plus luck.

    I have explained that to you many times already.

    As for macNeill's post, well I have exposed that strawman already also.

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Way to ignore my entire OP Rich- do you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation?

     
  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Now it appears those evotards are back into evotardgasm form when I mention "blind, undirected chemical processes" as being the proposed mechanism of evolution.

    But that's only a small part of "the proposed mechanisms" of evolution. Nobody (apart from you) is proposing that's all there is to evolution.

    Mutations are random with respect to fitness.

    What happens because of those random mutations is not itself random.

    So you lose.

     
  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So you agree that "evolution is an accumulation of genetic accidents." is incomplete, then?

    I'd humbly suggest that a good definition is complete and exhaustive. Yours in neither. 'Evolution is a thing' would also be correct, but also not very good.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now it appears those evotards are back into evotardgasm form when I mention "blind, undirected chemical processes" as being the proposed mechanism of evolution.

    OM:
    But that's only a small part of "the proposed mechanisms" of evolution. Nobody (apart from you) is proposing that's all there is to evolution.

    Any evidence to support your nonsense?

    I provided refrences that support my claim.

    OM:
    Mutations are random with respect to fitness.

    That's nonsense- mutations are all mistakes/ errors/ accidents- that is according to the ToE.

    OM:
    What happens because of those random mutations is not itself random.

    Bald assertion-

    Is Natural Selection Really Non-Random?

    IOW YOU lose asshole...

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    So you agree that "evolution is an accumulation of genetic accidents." is incomplete, then?

    It is complete. Just because you are too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it is incomplete.

    Rich:
    I'd humbly suggest that a good definition is complete and exhaustive. Yours in neither.

    Of course it is complete and exhaustive- it accounts for all mutations/ genetic changes as well as accounting for all processes for accumulation.

    Richard Dawkins calls it cumulative selection.

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe:

    You claim that ""evolution is an accumulation of genetic accidents" is complete. You also agree that "Cancer is also an accumulation of genetic accidents."

    Is this also complete? because if it is then evolution = cancer.

    This really is the mother-load of ignorance, keep going!

     
  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- According to the ToE ALL genetic changes are by chance. They are mistakes/ errors/ accidents.

    2- Natural selection and genetic drift are blind and mindless

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    You claim that ""evolution is an accumulation of genetic accidents" is complete. You also agree that "Cancer is also an accumulation of genetic accidents."

    Is this also complete? because if it is then evolution = cancer.


    What an ignorant pile of shit.

    So if my sheets are white and my house is white my sheets are my house?

    You are a moron...

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Any evidence to support your nonsense?

    My evidence is your lack of citations to support yours.

    That's nonsense- mutations are all mistakes/ errors/ accidents- that is according to the ToE.

    Never ticked the wrong box on a lottery ticket and won money? Accidents can be useful too.

    Bald assertion-

    What you don't understand is that it's about what happens on average, over millions or more trials.

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    If you claim that those deifinations are complete, which you do in the evolution case (but no-one else does).

    Keep going, you're making Monday morning fun.

    What about sexual selection. Is that random?

     
  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    My evidence is your lack of citations to support yours.

    IOW you don't have any evidence.

    OTOH I have supported my claims with several references.

    OM:
    What you don't understand is that it's about what happens on average, over millions or more trials.

    What you don't understand is that you are full of shit and cannot support your claims.

     
  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    If you claim that those deifinations are complete, which you do in the evolution case (but no-one else does).

    Dawkins appears to agree with me. And I am sure I can find many others.

    And I have provided several references to support my claims.

    OTOH you haven't provided anything that comes close to refuting my claims.

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    To be clear:

    Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker” DOES NOT EQUAL Random.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    I said natural selection is blind and mindless.

    I said the genetic changes are undirected mistakes/ errors/ accidents.

    I also provided my reasoning why natural selection really isn't anything anyway- it's just a result of three processes, an output driven by 3 separate inputs, each eiether entirely chance or having a big chance component.

    And everything I have provided demonstrates that the ToE posits blind, undirected (chemical) processes.

    OTOH all you can do is flail away.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No, you defined evolution using a definition that also worked for cancer. And you conflate random - using the loosest definition all things in the universe are random (and so your explanation has zero explanatory power. Evolutionary outcomes are not however equiprobable.

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    No, you defined evolution using a definition that also worked for cancer.

    Cancer is caused by an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    Not all accumulations of genetic accidents are cancer.

    Rich:
    And you conflate random - using the loosest definition all things in the universe are random (and so your explanation has zero explanatory power.

    BLIND, UNDIRECTED (chemical) PROCESSES

    AN ACCUMULATION OF GENETIC ACCIDENTS

    Where is the word "random"?

    Also I when I use the word "random" I am using it is the same sense that evolutionary biologists do- chance. Darwin used the word "chance" quite often in his book "On the Origins of Species..".

    Rich:
    Evolutionary outcomes are not however equiprobable.

    I never said nor implied they were.

    Now TRY responding to the points I made in the OP. You seem incapable of addressing what I post. So you are either very stupid or very dishonest...

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Not all accumulations of genetic accidents are cancer." then you need a better definition of "evolution".

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cancer is caused by an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    "Not all accumulations of genetic accidents are cancer."


    Richtard:
    then you need a better definition of "evolution".

    Why?

    Evolution, according to the ToE, is an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    Richard Dawkins calls it cumulative selection.

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW I am not defining evolution. That has been done already.

    I am just saying what the proposed mechanisms are. They are blind, undirected chemical processes.

    They can lead to cancer, death, change, stasis, etc.

     
  • At 11:08 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    I am just saying what the proposed mechanisms are. They are blind, undirected chemical processes.

    Then it should be no trouble to provide a citation to the relevant literature.

     
  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://richarddawkins.net/profiles/366

    " use "chance" intentionally. A lot of evolution is simple chance accumulation of random scraps of garbage and errors! We shouldn't run away from the word, but should embrace it.

    Of course, adaptive evolution is not chance, but random variety constrained by functional necessity." - PZ Myers.

    Please note - no quotemine, the whole thing. (I could have ommited the first part). I hope you're as honest if/when you use this quote.

     
  • At 1:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich quoting PZ?:
    Of course, adaptive evolution is not chance, but random variety constrained by functional necessity." - PZ Myers.

    How does that in any way refute what i have posted?

    How dos it even adress it?

    Why can't either of you fucking assholes address what I posted in the OP?

     
  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Give a complete definition and we'll be okay. You omit the bits you don't like..

     
  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am just saying what the proposed mechanisms are. They are blind, undirected chemical processes.

    OM:
    Then it should be no trouble to provide a citation to the relevant literature.

    It's in the OP- do you need more, really

    Or is the problem you are too stupid to understand the references provided? Or perhaps you are just too dishonest to fess up to reality.

     
  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Give a complete definition and we'll be okay.

    Perhaps you can tell me what you think I am omitting.

    I bet I will show you that you are FoS or that it is already included.

    Rich:
    You omit the bits you don't like..

    There isn't any evidence that I am omitting anything.

    So what is it that you think I am omitting- please be specific.

     
  • At 1:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Accumulation of genetic accidents-

    Accumulation- takes care of all- as in every- ways genetic changes accumulate- all encompassing, nothing is omitted.

    Genetic accidents- again refers to all genetic changes, nothing is omitted, all encompassing.

     
  • At 1:41 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Accumulation- takes care of all- as in every- ways genetic changes accumulate- all encompassing, nothing is omitted."

    How are they accumulated? That is omitted. And so you are incomplete.

     
  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    How are they accumulated? That is omitted.

    As I said they accumulate via a variety of ways- the word takes care of everything that allows them to accumulate.

    That is why it is complete.

    Ya see Rich there is no telling what mutation will occur at any one point in time and there is no way to predict what mutation will be selected for at any point in time.

     
  • At 1:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    accumulating genetic accidents

    In the evolutionary scenario all mutations are genetic accidents. And those accidents have to accumulate- they do so by various selection processes as well as sheer dumb luck.

     
  • At 1:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why do mutations accumulate?

    The honest evolutionary answer is "they just do until they don't"


    LoL!!!!

     
  • At 2:02 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    That's a rubbish description that leaves out all the selection goodness. You're not try to erect another strawman are you, Joe?

     
  • At 2:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    That's a rubbish description that leaves out all the selection goodness.

    It does't leave out anything. That is in there.

    As I said there are all kinds of reasons mutations accumulate- there isn't any one that applies to every stage and every generation.

    Rich:
    You're not try to erect another strawman are you, Joe?

    I haven't erected any so i can't erect another one.

    Your not trying to falsely accuse me of doing something, are you Rich?

    I mean you haven't even addressed my OP and that tells me that you are an intellectual coward at best.

     
  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Is sexual selection a ""blind, undirected chemical processes", Joe?

    What about environmental selection?

     
  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Is sexual selection a ""blind, undirected chemical processes", Joe?

    Does sexual selection pertain to mutations? No.

    Does sexual selection retard the accumulation of genetic accidents and therefor evolution? Yes.

    Is it always that every male and female gets to choose its mate? No.

    Rich:
    What about environmental selection?

    The environment doesn't select Rich. The environment is nature. It is blind.

     
  • At 2:52 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Does sexual selection pertain to mutations? No."

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pertain

    YES.

    "Does sexual selection retard the accumulation of genetic accidents and therefor evolution? Yes."

    Probably only negative ones, Joe.

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Does sexual selection pertain to mutations? No."

    Rich:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pertain

    YES.


    In which way does sexual selection pertain to mutations- does it cause mutations? No can it exist in the absence of mutations? Yes.

    "Does sexual selection retard the accumulation of genetic accidents and therefor evolution? Yes."

    "Does sexual selection retard the accumulation of genetic accidents and therefor evolution? Yes."

    Rich:
    Probably only negative ones, Joe.

    Sexual selection tends to keep the norm. Also sexual reproduction means there isn't any gaurantee that even the most beneficial mutation will get passed down.

    You have to have a lot of kids and those others will be competing against the one lucky one.

    IOW Rich you don't seem to know anything about anything.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home