"Evolution is a chance process"

[tako]

HI OSIRIS, Still at it, But I still say at least your friendly, and interesting. Just happen to see your answer about NOT CALIMING YOUR SAVED, I say its your call,and I'm sure you know we ask about it because YOU KNOW WE CARE, and not JUST TO BUG YOU ABOUT IT. And I hope you know that we have nothing to GAIN by asking if your SAVED because as you know the CHRISTIAN FAITH is not based on a MERIT SYSTEM, I just thought I'd leave you something to think about, If your RIGHT about there is NO GOD, Than we're ALL IN THE SAME BOAT AND SAFE!!! BUT IF THERE IS A GOD, WHAT????. Just something to THINK ABOUT, Remember SALVATION IS FREE!!!, BECAUSE IT'S A GIFT FROM GOD. Can't go wrong of that??? What a DEAL!!!!..........TAKO

[Osiris]

HI OSIRIS,  Still at it,    But I still say at least your friendly, and interesting.

Thank you tako :homestar:

Just happen to see your answer about NOT CALIMING YOUR SAVED, I say its your call,and I'm sure you know we ask about it because YOU KNOW WE CARE, and not JUST TO BUG YOU ABOUT IT.

Well, maybe not you, but I get a feeling some people ask just to get a kick out of it. (:\ )

And I hope you know that we have nothing to GAIN by asking if your SAVED because as you know the CHRISTIAN FAITH is not based on a MERIT SYSTEM, I just thought I'd leave you something to think about, If your RIGHT about there is NO GOD, Than we're ALL IN THE SAME BOAT AND SAFE!!! BUT IF THERE IS A GOD,    WHAT????. Just something to THINK ABOUT,

Thank you tako for your concern

I know precisely what you are talking about, I've heard of Pascal's Wager before, very oftenly

And like you said,

If I am right, we are on the same boat.

If you are right, you go to heaven, I go to hell.

But what if Muslims are right? Muslims go to heaven and we both go to hell.

I think the God of the Muslims brings far more punishment than the God of the bible. Should you convert to Islam now?

Remember SALVATION IS FREE!!!, BECAUSE IT'S A GIFT FROM GOD. Can't go wrong of that??? What a DEAL!!!!..........TAKO

Thank you, but I won't feel honesty in taking it.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Why Osiris?

Peace,

Dave

[Guest VanillaGorilla]

I have a feeling that Osiris feels the same as I do. If I (we) accept Gods plan I'd (we) be doing it half heartedly. From my learning experiences in college classes to many questions arise from what I was taught to simple accept Gods word without ever seeing proof or hearing it directly from him instead of his many followers.

That's not to say in the not to distant future we might be shown the way but for now I simply need more than faith of man's word to ride on.

[Matthitjah]

Vanilla,

Sincerely glad you are back with us. Keep seeking.

What is a college class up against the Glory of God? What is mans wisdom compared to the Word of God? Angels long to hear the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They cannot look into it nor hear it. Yet by Faith they serve God. Knowing that despite their great beauty and supernatural powers and wisdom far exceeding our own. That He is God and is far more Worthy of Praise than their own selves. They are in His presence daily and know the Love of provision and living in the sight of Love. Yet they hear not the Gospel spoken to them. ONE to one.

Joh

[nebula]

I have a feeling that Osiris feels the same as I do. If I (we) accept Gods plan I'd (we) be doing it half heartedly. From my learning experiences in college classes to many questions arise from what I was taught to simple accept Gods word without ever seeing proof or hearing it directly from him instead of his many followers.

That's not to say in the not to distant future we might be shown the way but for now I simply need more than faith of man's word to ride on.

Vanilla -

This may sound weird, but how about asking Jesus to reveal Himself to you? Then you'd have your own experience to go on.

Sound good?

[Guest VanillaGorilla]

Nebula,

Trust me I have asked for words from Jesus more times than I can imagine. After my accident, four months in re-hab in a unfimilar bedroom in a hospital thousands of miles away from home, I prayed every night for four months, never got anything. Now almost a year after my accident still I pray sometimes, and like before I get nothing in return. After all this time, and all the pain I've endured, alone without any answers!!! I now am just plain fusturated.

[tako]

HI OSIRIS, , OK, I'll talk to again later, gotta go TAKO

[Bread_of_Life]

All,

Sorry about my absence, work's been really hectic, and I'm only just getting a chance to post again on this forum now.

I think I've seen two really important on topic questions come out so far. The first is by far the most important, and on topic, from Arkon:

Arkon asked:

Basicly what was said here is that the ones that dont get eaten, killed by some other reason, and make it to the food first...have the better chance. There is still one more thing to look at, so we cant say that the animal will survive, it just has the better chance. (chance)

So we have luck, (that its not eaten) , we have luck, (that its not randomly killed by anything else), and we have luck (that there was food to find and it found it first)

Essentially, Arkon is putting a very real challenge to the theory of natural selection. It's all fine and well to say that fitter animals will survive and breed more on average - but there is also the chance that an animal will survive well and breed well out of luck, not because they are fitter than their peers. In this way, the lucky but unfit animal will pass unfit genes down another generation, escaping natural selection.

This is an excellent question - and it's one that Darwin himself dealt with, along with most early evolutionists - and therefore it's one that has a very good answer. Let me give you an analogy. I've got into Ice Hockey - the NHL - since they started showing it over here on channel 5 late night. It's currently 3-3 in games in this year's Stanley Cup final between Tampa Bay and Calgary (go calgary!) - and the last game is tonight!!! Exciting stuff.

In order to get to the Stanley Cup finals, Tampa and Calgary have had to play a regular season of 82 games against a total of 28 other teams of players. Then the 8 best teams from the eastern and western conference (Tampa 1st in Eastern, Calgary 6th in Western) had to compete in knockout playoffs, until the best western team and best eastern team face each other in the Stanley Cup final.

The worst team this season were Chigago, notching up stats of 20-43-11, with 8 overtime losses. That means that out of 82 games, Chigago could only win 20, less than a quarter of the total they played. That makes them by far the worst team in any conference this season. The reason they did so badly was because they didn't have the players, and they didn't have the team.

However, even as the worst team in the league, they still managed to win 20 games. That was out of a combination of happening to play the other team on a good day, the opposition having a bad day, and good ol' fashioned luck. But you can't be lucky forever, and you can't always rely on playing other teams on a bad day and on home ice. So they finished bottom.

On the other hand, Tampa Bay have had a great season. Their goalkeeper has been a big playoff star, and they've got good attacking skill, enough to break down Calgary's fairly tight defence. They came top of the eastern conference by a long way, scoring 46-22-8. That means they won well over half their games outright, and drew another 8. However, they still managed to lose 22 times in regular play, and 6 times more in overtime. But, overall, because they had the players, the management, and the team spirit, they managed to ride their bad luck and bad runs and came out well on top of their conference, and they've given themselves an excellent chance of taking the Stanley Cup on home ice tonight.

Evolution is bit like the Stanley Cup, genes are a bit like players on a team, and life is a bit like a run of a few games. Yes, bad genes can get lucky, and pass themselves into the next generation - but they can't pass their luck with them. Luck isn't something you inherit, you only inherit the players, the genes. So sure, with a run of luck, bad genes could get through one, two, maybe even three generations or games. And yet, good genes could be hampered by a run of low scores, or less children. But over many games (lifetimes), the best team will come out on top, because you can't inherit luck, but you can inherit a good team.

Chigago were never going to win the Stanley cup, because it's one thing getting lucky for 2 or 3 games, but to do it over 82 and playoffs you need more than luck, you need the best players. Bad genes might make it through one generation via luck, they might even make it through the next - but the luck will run out eventually, and there's plenty of time for it to do so. After a hundred generations, only the best genes will get through - because fitness dominates and luck diminishes the more generations pass.

So the simple answer is, you don't inherit luck, and the more generations pass, the less luck has anything to do with it, and the more fitness has to do with it, making natural selection a truly non-random, non-chance, non-luck process, if seen over many generations in which it takes place.

The second relevant question was asked by artsylady:

artsylady asked:

The first fish or fishes that grew stumps where the fins were. What advantage was it to them to flop around on the sand with stumps for a thousand years when they'd be much further ahead with fins swimming around in the water?

This is a specific example of a fairly generic question that evolutionists get asked a lot. What is the use of half a leg? What is the use of half a lung? What is the use of half an eye? The answer is usually similar in each case, so we'll deal with artsylady's example here and then try to generalise.

Firstly, fish probably grew stumps independently of their fins, rather than as a replacement, so they could still swim with their stumps.

However, getting to the real meat of it, the answer is almost certainly food and predation.

Fish hadn't spread to land, but plants had. What that meant is that there was probably vegetation on land to eat, in plentiful supplies, harvested by noone at all. What that meant is that, even if stumps were only good for pushing a fish a foot onto the land and back, for a period of a minute or two holding its breath, that's a foot or two of food that their peers without stumps didn't have any access to. The more developed their proto-legs got, the further and faster onto land they could go (similarly, the better and better they managed to breath air on land, the longer they could stay) - and therefore the more food they could harvest.

The second answer is predation. If a predator can only swim in the sea, and you can go onto land, even a few inches onto land, and even for a minute or two, that's an advantage over your peers who do not have this option. Sure, after a minute the predator might still be there, but they might also have given up, and gone in search of something easier to catch - or something else might have caught their eye, giving our stumpy fish a chance to escape. That gives stumpy fish an advantage over their less stumpy peers, and advantage that increases the longer and further they can make it on land.

These answers both involve something called "continuous variables". Time and distance are both continuous variables - you're not either 0 or 1 metres away, you can be something inbetween - you've not either spent one minute or two, you can be somewhere in between. An extra few seconds, an extra few centimetres could be the difference between having a hearty meal or making a hearty meal for a predator. Continuous variables are important in a lot of these sorts of problems.

For example, take camouflage. Clearly mutation didn't lead instantly to perfect camouflage, so what's the point in being 5% camouflaged?

Well, the simple answer is, distance. If a 0% camouflaged animal can be seen from 100m, then a 5% camouflaged animal can be seen from 95m. That extra 5m could be the difference between life and death if your uncamouflaged peer and you are in range of a predator. In fact, it means that you have a 5% less chance of being predated than your peer by any predator within 100m. Of course, you'd rather be 10% camouflaged - but any advantage is still an advantage when you're battling against your uncamouflaged peers for survival, food, and mates.

[Guest mscoville]

Fish hadn't spread to land, but plants had. What that meant is that there was probably vegetation on land to eat, in plentiful supplies, harvested by noone at all. What that meant is that, even if stumps were only good for pushing a fish a foot onto the land and back, for a period of a minute or two holding its breath, that's a foot or two of food that their peers without stumps didn't have any access to. The more developed their proto-legs got, the further and faster onto land they could go (similarly, the better and better they managed to breath air on land, the longer they could stay) - and therefore the more food they could harvest.

Doesn't is seem unlikely in the least, that it's improbable that a fish would learn to jump onto land to feed or escape predators, or that they'd remember to do it again? Until they had done it a few billion times they wouldn't manifest (is that documented?) the lucky mutation that helped them walk?

~ M