Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

TOE : Why do we need to see the colors?

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Color blinds can survive, can't they?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 4:33:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

There are arguably advantage to color blindness. If the current advantage were to reach the point of significantly enhancing arguably, perhaps it would overtake.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 5:43:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 4:33:52 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

There are arguably advantage to color blindness. If the current advantage were to reach the point of significantly enhancing arguably, perhaps it would overtake.

Hi TBR, TREssspa here. I've noticed you try your best to answer questions.

Sorry I could not understand the second line.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 7:32:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Since evolution is random, there is no "need" to see colors. It must have started out as a random mutation(or series of mutations) that natural selection fixed into the population, as it (must have) been more advantageous to survival in individuals.
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 7:32:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Since evolution is random, there is no "need" to see colors. It must have started out as a random mutation(or series of mutations) that natural selection fixed into the population, as it (must have) been more advantageous to survival in individuals.

There is no "why" or "need" according to Darwinists.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 9:29:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 5:43:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/3/2016 4:33:52 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

There are arguably advantage to color blindness. If the current advantage were to reach the point of significantly enhancing arguably, perhaps it would overtake.

Hi TBR, TREssspa here. I've noticed you try your best to answer questions.

Sorry I could not understand the second line.

If, for some reason, the benefits of color blindness were significant enough and conditions different enough that it favored survival then it could become dominant - that's all.

http://discovermagazine.com...
Aran55633
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 10:09:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Any adaptations which influence the relative reproductive rate positively are going to be favored by natural selection, and may, as a consequence, be selected into fixation. This won't always be the case, of course - a point that even the most rudimentary book or video on the subject would explain in an easily understood manner.

There are obvious advantages to be derived from an ability to see in color; finding "good" food, spotting predators more easily, etc.

I'm not sure if you were trolling. . . But I would have thought this was axiomatic.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 6:55:11 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 9:29:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 5:43:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/3/2016 4:33:52 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

There are arguably advantage to color blindness. If the current advantage were to reach the point of significantly enhancing arguably, perhaps it would overtake.

Hi TBR, TREssspa here. I've noticed you try your best to answer questions.

Sorry I could not understand the second line.

If, for some reason, the benefits of color blindness were significant enough and conditions different enough that it favored survival then it could become dominant - that's all.



http://discovermagazine.com...

You are saying color blindness may be a type of beneficial mutation, right?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 2:05:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 6:55:11 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/3/2016 9:29:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 5:43:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/3/2016 4:33:52 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

There are arguably advantage to color blindness. If the current advantage were to reach the point of significantly enhancing arguably, perhaps it would overtake.

Hi TBR, TREssspa here. I've noticed you try your best to answer questions.

Sorry I could not understand the second line.

If, for some reason, the benefits of color blindness were significant enough and conditions different enough that it favored survival then it could become dominant - that's all.



http://discovermagazine.com...

You are saying color blindness may be a type of beneficial mutation, right?

It could be. You may, it seems, be going down the same mistake path as a number of conversations recently on evolution. This is the mistaken assumption that evolution is attempting to make some super-human. That is just not true. If some sort of vision improved the survivability it could be seen as "better" or "worse" using our current understanding of what is beneficial.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 2:25:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly, but you remind me of an early objection I had when being taught evolution: Evolution would not produce what we would call 'elegance' in math or engineering or the like, only what Garrison Keillor might call "pretty good". A mutation only needs to confer the merest fraction of an advantage to be selected. So an evolved ecosystem would be full of forms that pretty much worked, but were not optimized for anything. As I like to put it, evolution might produce river rock, but not bowling balls. Or, to use your question - a black and white world could work, no need for color. No need for beauty or music, no need for bird songs to thrill the human heart on a bright spring morning.

On the other hand, lets acknowledge that color is of immense use - FIRE! would hardly be as compelling in black and white, nor would [some] birds find their flowers as easily. So I'm responding to a bit of a metaphorical sense of color here.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 2:57:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 2:05:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/4/2016 6:55:11 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/3/2016 9:29:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 5:43:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/3/2016 4:33:52 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

There are arguably advantage to color blindness. If the current advantage were to reach the point of significantly enhancing arguably, perhaps it would overtake.

Hi TBR, TREssspa here. I've noticed you try your best to answer questions.

Sorry I could not understand the second line.

If, for some reason, the benefits of color blindness were significant enough and conditions different enough that it favored survival then it could become dominant - that's all.



http://discovermagazine.com...

You are saying color blindness may be a type of beneficial mutation, right?

It could be. You may, it seems, be going down the same mistake path as a number of conversations recently on evolution. This is the mistaken assumption that evolution is attempting to make some super-human. That is just not true. If some sort of vision improved the survivability it could be seen as "better" or "worse" using our current understanding of what is beneficial.

Yeah, the evolutionist should really discard such concepts altogether. Evolution proposes a chain reaction, one that either grows, like an avalanche, or peters out, like a wet match. The 'why' of evolution is on the order of "why do rivers wind?".
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 6:52:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 2:57:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/4/2016 2:05:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/4/2016 6:55:11 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/3/2016 9:29:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 5:43:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/3/2016 4:33:52 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

There are arguably advantage to color blindness. If the current advantage were to reach the point of significantly enhancing arguably, perhaps it would overtake.

Hi TBR, TREssspa here. I've noticed you try your best to answer questions.

Sorry I could not understand the second line.

If, for some reason, the benefits of color blindness were significant enough and conditions different enough that it favored survival then it could become dominant - that's all.



http://discovermagazine.com...

You are saying color blindness may be a type of beneficial mutation, right?

It could be. You may, it seems, be going down the same mistake path as a number of conversations recently on evolution. This is the mistaken assumption that evolution is attempting to make some super-human. That is just not true. If some sort of vision improved the survivability it could be seen as "better" or "worse" using our current understanding of what is beneficial.

Yeah, the evolutionist should really discard such concepts altogether. Evolution proposes a chain reaction, one that either grows, like an avalanche, or peters out, like a wet match. The 'why' of evolution is on the order of "why do rivers wind?".

Not sure where you are going, but you and I were in one of these recently. The point I am making is simple, but critical to understanding. What we may think of as "better" has nothing to do with the natural forces at work. What may or may not drive change is just some mater of what we want. Getting "smarter" for example is not guaranteed to be our future. Your post up thread, the workable color vision we have has benefit, but there simply is no saying that will get "better" using our concept of that term right now.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:47:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 7:32:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Since evolution is random, there is no "need" to see colors. It must have started out as a random mutation(or series of mutations) that natural selection fixed into the population, as it (must have) been more advantageous to survival in individuals.

Evolution itself isn't random FYI, everything else is true though.
Meh!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 11:16:50 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 6:47:29 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/3/2016 7:32:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Since evolution is random, there is no "need" to see colors. It must have started out as a random mutation(or series of mutations) that natural selection fixed into the population, as it (must have) been more advantageous to survival in individuals.

Evolution itself isn't random FYI, everything else is true though.

Well first, (in my humble opinion) all of the ecosystem did NOT descend from a common ancestor, so the hypothetical process of evolution doesn't even exist. But the process proposed by Darwin most definitely is random, lol. This is just one of the indications of the trouble this junk science is in, when people have to run from the very fundamentals of the hypothesis.
This space for rent.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 11:25:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Red fruits on green trees are ripe. Colour vision allows less energy expenditure in feeding, more feeding in less time, and in competition with the colour blind, in conditions of scarcity, more feeding all round. Thus, healthier animals producing healthier offspring.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 11:25:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 11:16:50 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:47:29 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/3/2016 7:32:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Since evolution is random, there is no "need" to see colors. It must have started out as a random mutation(or series of mutations) that natural selection fixed into the population, as it (must have) been more advantageous to survival in individuals.

Evolution itself isn't random FYI, everything else is true though.

Well first, (in my humble opinion) all of the ecosystem did NOT descend from a common ancestor, so the hypothetical process of evolution doesn't even exist. But the process proposed by Darwin most definitely is random, lol. This is just one of the indications of the trouble this junk science is in, when people have to run from the very fundamentals of the hypothesis.

It's not that the science is in trouble, v. Natural selection is really not random, very much not random.

I'm not sure why you believe a process that creates a statistical reproductive bias is random. The two are mostly opposite by definition!
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 12:57:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Yes, but in a situation where blue berries good, red berries bad, all things being equal color vision has higher chance of survival.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:01:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 11:25:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/5/2016 11:16:50 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:47:29 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/3/2016 7:32:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Since evolution is random, there is no "need" to see colors. It must have started out as a random mutation(or series of mutations) that natural selection fixed into the population, as it (must have) been more advantageous to survival in individuals.

Evolution itself isn't random FYI, everything else is true though.

Well first, (in my humble opinion) all of the ecosystem did NOT descend from a common ancestor, so the hypothetical process of evolution doesn't even exist. But the process proposed by Darwin most definitely is random, lol. This is just one of the indications of the trouble this junk science is in, when people have to run from the very fundamentals of the hypothesis.

It's not that the science is in trouble, v. Natural selection is really not random, very much not random.

I'm not sure why you believe a process that creates a statistical reproductive bias is random. The two are mostly opposite by definition!

Ok, let's start with a definition from dictionary.com:

1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.


So, if you want to use definition #2, then random only exists in mathematical models. There are no perfect 50/50 odds in nature, and I'm not sure what the relevance would be to evolution anyway.

So, I will confine myself to definition #1: "occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern".

So maybe you should just tell me what definite aim, reason, or pattern there is in natural selection. Maybe you'll entertain me by saying the pattern is life itself, which would be delightful bit of circular reasoning.

And btw - Having one component of a system that is non-random does not make the overall system non-random. The shape of a coin is pre-determined, yet flipping a coin is said to be random.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:08:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 12:57:24 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Yes, but in a situation where blue berries good, red berries bad, all things being equal color vision has higher chance of survival.

But is there any correlation between berry color and poisonousness, real world? I doubt it.

In humans, color is mostly useful as a something humans assign to things. We code with color. So colorblind people have trouble with things that humans have created - clothing, traffic lights, things like that. It's not clear that color provides much of a basic survival mechanism in humans.

I'm not trying to argue it definitely doesn't [provide a selectable advantage], But it does seem that the sophistication of human color perception is at the least totally out of proportion to any survival benefit it might have provided to primitive man.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:28:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 2:01:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 11:25:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/5/2016 11:16:50 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:47:29 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/3/2016 7:32:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Since evolution is random, there is no "need" to see colors. It must have started out as a random mutation(or series of mutations) that natural selection fixed into the population, as it (must have) been more advantageous to survival in individuals.

Evolution itself isn't random FYI, everything else is true though.

Well first, (in my humble opinion) all of the ecosystem did NOT descend from a common ancestor, so the hypothetical process of evolution doesn't even exist. But the process proposed by Darwin most definitely is random, lol. This is just one of the indications of the trouble this junk science is in, when people have to run from the very fundamentals of the hypothesis.

It's not that the science is in trouble, v. Natural selection is really not random, very much not random.

I'm not sure why you believe a process that creates a statistical reproductive bias is random. The two are mostly opposite by definition!

Ok, let's start with a definition from dictionary.com:

1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.


So, if you want to use definition #2, then random only exists in mathematical models. There are no perfect 50/50 odds in nature, and I'm not sure what the relevance would be to evolution anyway.

Nice arbitrary rejection there! Statistical randomness is effectively an unbiased selection. If selection is unbiased then it's random. If it's biased, it's non random.

So, I will confine myself to definition #1: "occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern".

So maybe you should just tell me what definite aim, reason, or pattern there is in natural selection. Maybe you'll entertain me by saying the pattern is life itself, which would be delightful bit of circular reasoning.

The pattern is pretty simple. Mutations are random, the pattern is that mutations that survive multiple generation are not a random unbiased selection of those mutations: eg the pattern is that the variation properties that survive are not a random selection of the variations that occur; but a subset biased by positive effect.

And btw - Having one component of a system that is non-random does not make the overall system non-random. The shape of a coin is pre-determined, yet flipping a coin is said to be random.

And? What makes it random is systematic bias. A weighted coin, or loaded dice rolls are not random because they introduce a result bias.

Casino profits are also non random, because of the inherent bias in the individual games. That's the equivalent of natural selection. Variation occurs, the same way someone can win millions on a roulette table, however the bias in a casino that causes a general overall loss for all players, is directly analogous to that of natural selection, the bias is for survivable traits and better variations, leading to an overall non random net gain over generations
The_Great_Amalgam
Posts: 1,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:40:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

While it does have advantages, sometimes color blindness can be very dangerous. Take for example, the coral snake and the milk snake. The colors on these snake help to differentiate which one is dangerous and which one isn't. Red on Yellow would be death, but red on black isn't. Thanks to color, we can prevent snake bites from the coral snake.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 3:24:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 2:28:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Casino profits are also non random, because of the inherent bias in the individual games. That's the equivalent of natural selection.

Casino bias is intelligent design. The rules are created to make the house win over the long term.

So how are the rules of physics written so life occurs and not death? And that's exactly what it means to say selection is non-random. Is that really what you mean to claim? Do you really mean to claim that the dice of physics were loaded such that life would emerge? That sounds like a form of creationism to me.

the bias in a casino that causes a general overall loss for all players, is directly analogous to that of natural selection, the bias is for survivable traits and better variations, leading to an overall non random net gain over generations

So you are claiming that natural selection is intelligent design, under the hood.

I doubt that's really what you mean to claim.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 4:29:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 2:08:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 12:57:24 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Yes, but in a situation where blue berries good, red berries bad, all things being equal color vision has higher chance of survival.

But is there any correlation between berry color and poisonousness, real world? I doubt it.

In humans, color is mostly useful as a something humans assign to things. We code with color. So colorblind people have trouble with things that humans have created - clothing, traffic lights, things like that. It's not clear that color provides much of a basic survival mechanism in humans.

I'm not trying to argue it definitely doesn't [provide a selectable advantage], But it does seem that the sophistication of human color perception is at the least totally out of proportion to any survival benefit it might have provided to primitive man.

These kinds of posts make me wonder if you actually suppress things you've learned in order to make arguments against evolution. Our level of color detection allows us to see a wide range of signals in nature. As someone else mentioned, color is an indicator of fruit ripeness. It also signals seasonal changes. Bright colors correlate to danger (e.g. poison) in animals. Color can reveal a predator among the trees. I refuse to believe you've reached adulthood without having encountered at least a dozen instances in nature where it is advantageous to be able to see in the range of colors that we do.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 5:29:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 4:29:49 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/5/2016 2:08:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 12:57:24 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Yes, but in a situation where blue berries good, red berries bad, all things being equal color vision has higher chance of survival.

But is there any correlation between berry color and poisonousness, real world? I doubt it.

In humans, color is mostly useful as a something humans assign to things. We code with color. So colorblind people have trouble with things that humans have created - clothing, traffic lights, things like that. It's not clear that color provides much of a basic survival mechanism in humans.

I'm not trying to argue it definitely doesn't [provide a selectable advantage], But it does seem that the sophistication of human color perception is at the least totally out of proportion to any survival benefit it might have provided to primitive man.

These kinds of posts make me wonder if you actually suppress things you've learned in order to make arguments against evolution. Our level of color detection allows us to see a wide range of signals in nature. As someone else mentioned, color is an indicator of fruit ripeness. It also signals seasonal changes. Bright colors correlate to danger (e.g. poison) in animals. Color can reveal a predator among the trees. I refuse to believe you've reached adulthood without having encountered at least a dozen instances in nature where it is advantageous to be able to see in the range of colors that we do.

Well, how about YOU learn to read more carefully. I explicitly acknowledged that color might in fact provide selectable advantage. My point is a little more subtle, and isn't really intended as a gotcha point. My musings are more for the kind of person who just wonders about how and why things happen(ed).

You do understand, right, that color is a human construct, not something that exists inherently in nature? There aren't seven colors in a rainbow, that's something our brain (and eye) does to a rainbow. So we're actually seeing inaccurately, in a way, seeing something that isn't there.
This space for rent.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 5:50:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

There are advantages to seeing colors. For example, we can more easily distinguish edible foods from poisonous ones by looking at their color. The same goes for different kinds of animals.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:12:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 3:24:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 2:28:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Casino profits are also non random, because of the inherent bias in the individual games. That's the equivalent of natural selection.

Casino bias is intelligent design. The rules are created to make the house win over the long term.

And if that bias exists naturally without being intelligently created, it's natural and not intelligently designed! Which is the point.

So how are the rules of physics written so life occurs and not death? And that's exactly what it means to say selection is non-random. Is that really what you mean to claim? Do you really mean to claim that the dice of physics were loaded such that life would emerge? That sounds like a form of creationism to me.

Much as you want to insert intelligence into a system that simply works via deterministic processes with no intelligent involvement, that's not what I'm saying and you know it.

Moreover, if you want to suggest that the laws of physics being created, then proceeds naturally over 13.4bn years with all life evolving naturally from a common ancestor is a form of creationism, be my guest; but it's kind of funny that you have to argue from a position that implies I'm right and you're wrong.

Natural selection is a bias, based on natural, non intelligently controlled factors that cause variations in a subsequent generations to be a non-random subset of those in the previous subset, with a pattern bias towards survivability based on the interaction between the organism and it's environment. Non random, non intelligent; it does not require agency, despite you desperately trying to find a way to make it sound like it does.

the bias in a casino that causes a general overall loss for all players, is directly analogous to that of natural selection, the bias is for survivable traits and better variations, leading to an overall non random net gain over generations

So you are claiming that natural selection is intelligent design, under the hood.

I doubt that's really what you mean to claim.

Of course not, but as you are unable or unwilling to portray the position honestly, I am not surprised.

You don't seem to grasp the definition of random. Indeed this whole post was describing how natural selection isn't random because of the effect it has, and using examples of random events combined with non-random selection bias gives a non random outcome.

You seem to have ignored all that, and changed subject to imply that because a casino game is designed to make a profit; then how an organism interacts and survives in its environment or not, and the effect this has on the gene pool from one generation to the next must have intelligence tweaking the survival or the environment in some way to get the result.

The reality is natural selection is a systematic bias; hence by definition non random; hence evolution is non random. Natural selection doesn't require intelligence in any way, simply an environment to which naturally occurring variations in organisms can be more or less suited.

So evolution is non random, and there is no necessity of intelligence to make it non random.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:45:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 5:29:40 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:29:49 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/5/2016 2:08:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 12:57:24 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Yes, but in a situation where blue berries good, red berries bad, all things being equal color vision has higher chance of survival.

But is there any correlation between berry color and poisonousness, real world? I doubt it.

In humans, color is mostly useful as a something humans assign to things. We code with color. So colorblind people have trouble with things that humans have created - clothing, traffic lights, things like that. It's not clear that color provides much of a basic survival mechanism in humans.

I'm not trying to argue it definitely doesn't [provide a selectable advantage], But it does seem that the sophistication of human color perception is at the least totally out of proportion to any survival benefit it might have provided to primitive man.

These kinds of posts make me wonder if you actually suppress things you've learned in order to make arguments against evolution. Our level of color detection allows us to see a wide range of signals in nature. As someone else mentioned, color is an indicator of fruit ripeness. It also signals seasonal changes. Bright colors correlate to danger (e.g. poison) in animals. Color can reveal a predator among the trees. I refuse to believe you've reached adulthood without having encountered at least a dozen instances in nature where it is advantageous to be able to see in the range of colors that we do.

Well, how about YOU learn to read more carefully. I explicitly acknowledged that color might in fact provide selectable advantage. My point is a little more subtle, and isn't really intended as a gotcha point. My musings are more for the kind of person who just wonders about how and why things happen(ed).

You do understand, right, that color is a human construct, not something that exists inherently in nature? There aren't seven colors in a rainbow, that's something our brain (and eye) does to a rainbow. So we're actually seeing inaccurately, in a way, seeing something that isn't there.

You should take your own advice and maybe reread my post. Anyway, your point would suggest that being able to notice a vibrant green tree in spring compared to the dull green of that same tree at the start of autumn is not significantly advantageous. I honestly can't tell if you're oblivious to these kinds of things or subconsciously suppressing them so you can make the argument.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 1:02:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 11:16:50 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:47:29 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/3/2016 7:32:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Since evolution is random, there is no "need" to see colors. It must have started out as a random mutation(or series of mutations) that natural selection fixed into the population, as it (must have) been more advantageous to survival in individuals.

Evolution itself isn't random FYI, everything else is true though.

Well first, (in my humble opinion) all of the ecosystem did NOT descend from a common ancestor, so the hypothetical process of evolution doesn't even exist.

Yes, that is just an opinion.

But the process proposed by Darwin most definitely is random, lol. This is just one of the indications of the trouble this junk science is in, when people have to run from the very fundamentals of the hypothesis.

You clearly have no understanding of natural selection, natural selection is a non-random process, any genetic variations that aid survival and reproduction have a higher probability than neutral or harmful genetic variations to become more common, which can cause a species to evolve or in some cases undergo speciation.
Meh!
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 1:10:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:10:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Color blinds can survive, can't they?

Well, so can blind people. Color allows you to better tell the difference between things that have the same look but are of different colors. This allows you to make better choices for example telling the difference between different types of fruit or snakes.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 4:23:50 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Re the colours of ripe and unripe fruit, it is likely that in some (or many) cases, fruits evolved to use colour to signal ripeness because there were animals which already had colour vision, which confuses the issue of which is the horse and which is the cart! Colour vision goes way,way back in evolutionary terms and can't really be fully explained by the dietary preferences of modern primates.

You could look at this question as a particular case of why 'bad' genes (in this case the genes for colour-blindness) aren't eliminated by natural selection. This is the best web-page I have found about that.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
The whole site is worth checking out.