Why Natural Selection is Not Random

Update: Read this article instead.

Every once in awhile (read: all the damn time), a creationist will say evolution is random. Sometimes they say natural selection is random (the words are rather interchangeable among some creationists). But one creationist does us one better and calls both of them random (and the Big Bang, too). So here is an article I wrote quite a few months ago on the topic. The first couple grafs were mainly meant to be topical, so at this point they’re a bit out of date. Deal.

Why Evolution Is Not Random

During a CNN June debate, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee raised his hand when asked whether or not he accepts the theory of evolution. More recently, the Florida Board of Education spent several months deciding if the mere word ‘evolution’ should appear in the curriculum. After many debates, a compromise was met where evolution was referred to as only a theory, not a fact (gravity is also a theory, not a fact). In the Spring 2008 Ben Stein will revive his career on the silver screen. But rather than asking if anyone has seen Bueller, he will be questioning the motives of the scientific community at large. An overwhelming majority of biologists regard the notion of intelligent design – the proposal that life is so complex there must be a creator – as unscientific. Ben Stein sees a conspiracy.

Behind all of these cases is a fundamental underpinning: the desire to bring more people to God. But what is often accepted is the erroneous means to this end. The very public war against the theory of evolution has brought many of these means to light for evolutionary biologists, the crusaders and rottweilers of Charles Darwin’s revolutionary theory.

Perhaps the most vibrant means is the argument against plausibility. To be at all likely, evolution cannot be a random process. Yet this is exactly the case made by many creationists and, indeed, is one of the more popular starting points in a stance opposing the theory of evolution.

One of the reasons creationism could be considered plausible is that it makes complex life likely. If a supreme being exists which can do as he pleases and has the means, then why not create life? This does fail to answer the nature of the origin of a being complex enough to create life (and presumably the Universe), but all things equal, evolution does not address the issue of the origins of life (nor did Charles Darwin ever intend for it to do that). So if one is to parallel the situation, it is well enough to side-step answering the origin of a supreme being for our current scope.

So it follows that if creationism, from at least a certain point, makes complexity likely, then the creationist argument that evolution is random must have a basis in opposing the likelihood of complex life forms. Dr. David Menton of the $27 million Creationist Museum in Kentucky and graduate of Brown University with a Ph.D. in cell biology, puts the creationist standpoint succinctly, saying “Evolutionists feel vulnerable to evolution being pure chance.”

But what of “pure chance”? Evolution consists of many mechanisms, but the two big driving forces are natural selection and random mutation. (To be fair, random mutations should be considered more as just a force rather than a driving force.) So why do some consider these mechanisms to be random? Dr. Menton appeals to the idea that “science is built on a statistical foundation.” Natural selection and random mutations do not result in complex life forms because such occurrences are greatly improbable. Answers in Genesis, the group which runs the Creation Museum, explains further on their website, http://www.answersingenesis.com. “The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800.” In other words, evolution is about as likely as all the atoms in the Statue of Liberty moving in one direction and then the other, making her appear as though she was waving to all who came to America. It’s possible, but so unlikely that it isn’t worth devoting much thought.

So if evolution is such a stupendously unlikely thing to happen, then why do we give it any credit? Why bother with such odds? If evolution is unlikely, then a mechanism which provides a path to complexity is necessary if the theory is to survive scientific scrutiny – nay, if it is to survive any scrutiny. Natural selection is the answer for most biologists. Ken Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, perhaps best known for his testimony in the ‘Intelligent Design’ trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) in Dover, Pennsylvania (and subsequent appearance on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report), but also famous for his opposition to creationism, is one such biologist.

“I have no idea why someone would take a term like natural selection and say it is random”, said Miller when reached for an interview.

Miller sees natural selection as one of the essential paths to complex life forms. Such a mechanism gives species the ability to filter out what doesn’t work and leave what does. Professor Miller echoes this notion, saying “[n]atural selection is a distinctly non-random process that acts as a sieve through which genetic changes are filtered.” Just as a sieve filled with various rocks will not end up filtering out its contents randomly, natural selection does not filter organisms randomly.

But how else can it be said natural selection is non-random? In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin compares it to artificial selection. That is, when humans breed, say, dogs, for particular traits, they are applying a form of selection pressure to a phenotype (a particular dog or particular dogs). This in turn results in the great variety we see among our beloved pets. The key difference here, however, is that this form of selection had a particular goal in mind, i.e. floppy ears, sleek body, fluffy coat, wrinkly skin, etc. Humans were able to apply their foresight and consciousness to the reasoning behind the selection. Nature does not do this.

This notion that natural selection is both a non-random process and an undirected one at the same time can lead to confusion. The concept is essentially that this mechanism lends itself to increasing complexity because it builds in cumulative steps. For a step to be cumulative, it (quite obviously) must be based on the previous step. A random process does not lend itself to cumulative steps because, by definition, it is not based on anything. So in this way natural selection is non-random. But it also does not look to end in the phenotype of a tiger or a bat. It has no conscience, merely results. For this reason, it is undirected.

But the second key ingredient in evolution is random mutation. As Jay Labov of the National Academy of Sciences points out, “[n]atural selection acts on things that are already there.” Without random mutations, there isn’t much there; certainly not enough to account for the great genetic variation seen within species today.

There is dissent, however, from the creationist side. Dr. Menton certainly agrees that natural selection can only act on what it is given (“I believe [it] occurs. I believe in it completely”), but he disagrees that the genetic variation is available for one species to become another. This is because “[r]andom mutations do not provide for the raw material for novel information. It’s like going to Midas and asking for a dozen yellow roses. They just aren’t there,” he says. Without these genetic changes, “[w]e don’t see natural selection producing novel features.” Menton goes further to add that something like a reptile does not have the raw material to produce the features, such as wings, which are seen in birds.

The first issue of whether or not random mutations can add novel information can be answered in day-to-day life. Mutated animals (including humans) are fairly common. A person with an extra finger or a snake with two heads are both examples of organisms which have mutations. These are deleterious (bad) mutations, but they aren’t the most frequent. More commonly, neutral mutations occur. These aren’t particularly acted upon by natural selection because most genes tolerate changes quite well, according to Miller. Sometimes, however, a gene will mutate and it will be beneficial. It may extremely slight, but if it offers any survival advantage at all, it is more likely to survive the sieve of natural selection. For example, a mutation which makes a bacterium immune to antibodies will quickly spread throughout the population.

A second issue is whether or not natural selection can produce novel features. Assuming random mutations do not provide for novel information (they do), natural selection can still produce novel features. Dr. Menton’s example of reptiles and birds works perfectly.

“Reptilian ancestors of birds had wherewithal to produce feathers,” says Miller. When speaking of the more than dozen dinosaur fossils which show feathers, he continues, “One (Shuvuuia deserti) has tested positive for the major protein found in bird feathers.”

What does this mean? Simply, ancestors of modern day reptiles had the information to create novel features. But it is “[e]nvironmental factors [which] may turn genes on and off,” says Labov. Whether or not the genes needed to create the particular feature of feathers show up in a phenotype is determined by need, which is governed by natural selection.

Anne Holden, staff member at the National Center for Science Education, further supports the point of natural selection having great genetic variation with which to work by pointing out that our “DNA can recombine and does recombine during fertilization.” The genome of an offspring is a combination of its parents’ genes, but the way in which recombination can occur is impossible to number.

Holden further cites the adaptive radiation of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands. As a result of the variation within every organism which is born, the famous finches which where pivotal in Darwin’s formulation of the mechanism of natural selection, had the ability to become distinctly varied throughout the Pacific islands they inhabited. Not only were these finches much different from the familiar European ones Darwin knew, but they were different from island to island. Depending upon the size of the food supply (nuts, primarily), the finches’ beak sizes changed accordingly. A random happenstance of small, medium, and large beaks were not the case on an island where small, hard to get shells persisted. Instead, natural selection non-randomly ‘selected’ for the birds which were best adapted to the task at hand.

It is important to restate the point of this article. Evolution has a strong random element, but natural selection is not a random process. It is this mechanism which gives rise to the great complexity seen in all living organisms today. It does not indicate what the result will be, but it does explain that complexity can be. It builds, in cumulative steps, toward greater adaptability. As a great man once said, there is a grandeur in all this.

About these ads

57 Responses

  1. Natural selection is a product of selective pressures. Those selective pressures are random in that they do not try to produce anything specific (ie: original appendages, limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, etc… or the DNA that codes for them). Hence, natural selection is random. It doesn’t try to produce anything with an end goal in mind, it simply selects out whatever happens not to survive (and whatever happens to survive is what it happened to select, which is a tautology). Natural selection doesn’t look at the organism and say, “if I make selective pressures require an adaptation to cold weather, it will increase the probability of adding component A to the organism, and component A will work well with the existing components. If I make selective pressures require an adaption to hot weather, it will kill the organism. Hence, I will make selective pressures require an adaption to cold weather.” Selective pressures are random. They do not have any end goal in mind and they do not care what the organism produces or how well it survives and they do not care to act in such a way that will make the organism produce interdependent systems that function together. It’s like tossing an unbiased coin, the weather could be hot, it could be cold, but the temperature patterns do not purposely adjust themselves to produce anything specific (ie: limbs, etc..). Natural selection is random in that it has no purpose, just like tossing an unbiased coin, anything that is produced is done on accident. How can anyone say that natural selection is not random, what is it, purposeful? Does it try to produce anything specific with intent? Does natural selection ponder, “well, I want to produce limbs, what combination of selective pressures can do this.” No, it just randomly does whatever it happens to do with no such intent in mind.

    Also note, the random nature of natural selection is independent of what you call it. You can call it random selection, natural selection, oooga booga, whatever, the fact that you decide to label it natural selection does not make the process being described any less random.

  2. […] 27, 2008 by Michael This is apparently some confusion over my post about why natural selection is not random. It’s a fairly elementary issue at hand, but it evidently needs to be addressed. One viewer […]

  3. “This is apparently some confusion over my post about why natural selection is not random. It’s a fairly elementary issue at hand, but it evidently needs to be addressed.”

    The only confusion is on your part.

  4. Do you have anything in particular you (or Harshman) would like to discuss?

  5. […] isn’t randomMass state trooper is a mindless robotHow Natural Selection is CumulativeReally? Prince?Why Natural Selection is Not RandomWorld Beard […]

  6. Here’s a (hopefully vivid analogy of natural selection). Let’s say that I put a bunch of people into a giant sieve, below which is a huge meat grinder. The people come in different sizes (some are fat and some are skinny enough to fall through the holes in the sieve). Which ones will be able to survive to reproduce? If each generation is subject to this, how will the frequency of fat people change over time? This is selection. It is NOT a random process! A random process would use a coin flip to determine who reproduces, not a sieve! A coin flip will not cause the frequency of fat people to increase over time, the sieve will. In the natural world the ‘sieve’ is simply the act of living in one’s environment. No process can predict what traits will be better for future generations so there is no specific ‘goal’ that nature strives towards as Bettawrekonize implies. Selection does not require that something specific has to be produced in order for it to be non-random. He/she is confusing randomness with directedness. Natural selection is not a ‘directed’ process. Natural selection is simply the result of a individual living or dying (reproducing or not reproducing) depending on how well it functions in it’s current environment–a non-directed AND non-random process.

  7. Evolution is biased at genes replication routes, at their alternative-splicing-steps junctions

    A. A reply to one of my posts:

    “Dov, you write: Life’s evolution is not random. It is biased, driven by culture.

    Be sure you understand that Darwin did not say that evolution is random. He said that evolution is not random. It is driven by natural selection.”

    B. I never wrote anything that Darwin said. Here, again, is what I say and wrote:

    Culture is the universal driver of genetic evolution

    The major course of natural selection is not via random mutations followed by survival, but via interdependent, interactive and interenhencing selection of biased genes replication routes at their alternative-splicing-steps junctions, effected by the cultural feedback of the third stratum multicells organism or monocells community to their second and prime strata genome-genes organisms.”

    Dov Henis
    (Comments From The 22nd Century)

    http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1

    Life’s Manifest

    http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page#578

  8. Bettawrekonize, well said. Natural selection is as random as anything that is random. When something is not random, it could only mean intention, plan, or something similar. Selection by human breeders is not random. Has anyone claimed natural selection to be similar to human selection? If the climate suddenly becomes hot, is it not a random event in the sense that no intention is behind it? If the hot climate then kills a lot of organisms or variants that could not stand the heat, can one call these death (or the survival of those heat resistant variants) anything other than the outcome of a random accident?

    Logical lapse is the reason for calling natural selection non-random. Darwin followers are very poor in logic, following a long tradition started by Darwin himself who is famously poor with mathematics. And math is all all about logical deductions.

  9. When something is not random, it could only mean intention, plan, or something similar.

    Then gravitational pull is wholly random. No predictions can be made because everything is chance and we have no idea how anything works.

    This is why it has been said that religion teaches one to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

    Has anyone claimed natural selection to be similar to human selection?

    Charles Darwin said it. He coined the term as a direct analogy to breeder selection.

  10. Newton did not know what is behind gravity but believe it is the intention of God. I dont think anyone knows gravity better than Newton. Last time I checked, no one has gotten a Nobel for discovering that gravity was randomly created.

    If natural selection is non-random, then what do you call selection by the intention of God or human mind? Super-non-random? Or random, since an intentional God is the opposite of natural selection or no God or no intention? If a Darwin follower cannot see the logical absurdities here, that is precisely why he has become such a follower: he just cannot do simple math/logic. No one can blame him since like attracts likes. With a leader like Darwin who hates math, no one would expect his followers to be among the most rigorous minds in logic/math.

    Selection by a dice-tossing God is obviously random, at least when non-random defines a God who selects by intention. Natural selection is the opposite of a non-random God and so is a dice-tossing God. Thus, natural selection and a dice-tossing God shares one thing in common, being the opposite of a non-random God. And what do we call the opposite of non-random? Is it not random?

    is there anything illogical in this line of reason?

    Further deduction along this line. Believe in random God is religion, regardless whether he is dice-tossing or miracle creating. Since natural selection is no different from a dice-tossing God, believe in natural selection is religion. No different from literalist religion whose God is also arbitrary. Again, anything illogical here?

    God can be either non-random or random. A non-random God follows laws while a random one is arbitrary. Dice tossing and arbitrarily creating miracles are both arbitrary. Thus to believe in a dice tossing God as Darwin followers do is no different from literalist religions who believe a God of miracles. Both believe in random or arbitrariness.

    The only option left is to believe in a non-random law abiding God. Such a God, unlike a random God, is knowable by human reason and science. All humans need to do is to discover the creation law of God. That is also the only way to know God. No one has done that yet. But it remains possible to do and offers a much better future for humanity than a random God. Believe in a non-random law abiding God is not religion but genuine science since it is a notion that is testable and knowable/provable. Its opposite notion, i.e., randomness, dice-tossing God, or natural selection, is by definition non-testable and unknowable or unprovable, and is hence religion by definition.

  11. Newton did not know what is behind gravity but believe it is the intention of God. I dont think anyone knows gravity better than Newton. Last time I checked, no one has gotten a Nobel for discovering that gravity was randomly created.

    Einstein knew gravity better than Newton, hence that whole little theory of his and all.

    You’ve gone and defined “non-random” as necessarily needing a conscious being. If that’s your definition, then gravity is random because it happens unconsciously. If you counter that your god is behind gravity, then I can simply counter that he/she/it is behind evolution. It’s an absurd argument you’re making where your premise is a misdefinition.

    If natural selection is non-random, then what do you call selection by the intention of God or human mind? Super-non-random? Or random, since an intentional God is the opposite of natural selection or no God or no intention?

    I call selection by your god to be delusional.

    Understand the analogy. When breeders pick a certain cow for its milk production, that cow is not randomly selected. It passes on its genes because it is sufficiently suited to its environment; in this case, the environment is the whims and/or needs of humans. When a flying squirrel can glide a little further from a predator, it doesn’t fall to the forest floor. It survives because it is less likely to be killed by something that likes to eat squirrels down there. It’s the same idea except one has a goal in mind.

    Again, because you’re a creationist and you will willfully miss the point, breeders select cows based upon their traits. Nature ‘selects’ flying squirrels based upon their traits. Same principle.

    Further deduction along this line. Believe in random God is religion, regardless whether he is dice-tossing or miracle creating. Since natural selection is no different from a dice-tossing God, believe in natural selection is religion. No different from literalist religion whose God is also arbitrary. Again, anything illogical here?

    This sort of argument tickles my funny bone. Creationists want to grab the prestige of science and shun the label of religion. One is good, one is awful. They recognize the connotations. Science represents fact while religion is dogmatic myth. Except for when it’s convenient to distort both of them. “I don’t have religion! I just believe in the supernatural!”

    Believe in a non-random law abiding God is not religion but genuine science since it is a notion that is testable and knowable/provable. Its opposite notion, i.e., randomness, dice-tossing God, or natural selection, is by definition non-testable and unknowable or unprovable, and is hence religion by definition.

    Okay. I’ve given this story on this blog. I’ll give a short version.

    There’s an upper pond and a lower pond. They are divided by a dam that blocks the large fish (lower pond) from getting to the small fish (upper pond). The small fish are brightly colored. That attracts mates. They have no predators. The large fish are introduced into the upper pond. They snatch up the brightly colored fish. Soon, the small fish population is dominated by dull colors. The large fish are then removed. Bright colors return. That is natural selection in action.

    Why do you believe the change in gene frequency for bright coloring was random? Do you think it was merely a coincidence that a predator was introduced shortly before dull colors prevailed?

    Now. Give me some possible experiments for detecting your particular god. What predictions are made from your rock hard science?

  12. Okay, I think I know where the logical mistake is in calling natural selection non-random. Let me illustrate this by an abstract example. A random event A happens, which than causes a chain of events, leading to B, and then C, etc and finally to Z. The chain of events from A to Z are all lawful, simply following cause and effect laws of physics, chemistry, or biology. Where do these laws come from no one knows but do not concern us here. An actual example of a random event A is a random mutation, which than causes a mutant protein, which than causes a heat resistant phenotype, which finally causes the survival of the organism in a hot climate. Here, the mutation is random but the chain of events from the mutation to the expression of the heat resistant phenotype of the mutant organism are not random.

    Now let’s do this for natural selection. The climate on Earth suddenly becomes hot due to some accident. The change to a hot climate is a random event since it is not intentionally caused. The chain of events from a hot climate to the death of heat sensitive organisms (and the survival of heat resistant organisms) follows scientific laws and and are not random.

    Darwinism considers the appearance of heat resistant mutant organisms random. The reason here is that the original event leading to the phenotype of heat resistance is a random mutation. Darwinism here disregards the non-random chain of events from a mutation in DNA to the expression of the phenotype. The original cause is random but the process following the cause is non-random. So the appearance of a heat resistant mutant organism requires both a random cause and a non-random process. If you focus on the original cause, you would call the mutant organism randomly created. But if you focus on the process, you would call the mutant organism non-randomly created.

    The sudden appearance of hot climate is random, but the process from hot climate to the death of heat sensitive organisms is not random. If one focus on the original cause, one would call those death random. If one focus on the process, one would call those death non-random.

    Here is a key point. An event is random as long as its original cause is random, regardless whether the chain of events from the original cause to the final event is lawful or not. That is why Darwinism would consider the appearance of the heat resistant or sensitive organism randomly caused. But if Darwinism must be consistent as any sound theory should be, it must also consider the death of heat sensitive organism due to hot climate randomly caused.

    The key difference between natural selection and intention selection is about the original cause rather than the process. In natural selection, the climate change is a random event. In intentional selection, the climate change is purposely caused by intention/God or human intervention. But the process from hot weather to death of organisms is lawful and non-random in both cases and is exactly the same in both cases.

    Another illustration. The selection of a lottery winner is random, no one would dispute that. But the random event here is the original random picking event. But everything that follows from the original random event are all lawful and non-random. These events include the proper reading of the numbers on the ticket, the proper match of that reading with the predetermined winning number, and the proper notification of the winner. Here the non-random process does not make us call that winner non-randomly selected.

    In science, we always want to know the ultimate cause, from the final outcome Z, we want to know original A and we don’t arbitrarily stop at B. Calling natural selection non-random is to ignore A and arbitrarily stop at B. And that is not science. And that causes logical absurdity because it would make natural selection exactly the same as intentional selection by God or human.

    Natural selection the process is not random but the selector is. God selection is non-random in both the process and the selector. If I survive because of God selection, I say I am intentionally selected. If I survive because of a random selector, I say I am randomly selected. If I focus on the process rather then the selector, I would never know if I am randomly selected or not. As rational human beings, I do want to know.

  13. A more general axiom that is intuitively true and consistent with reality: in a chain of events, it just takes one random/arbitrary event anywhere in the chain to make the outcome of the chain of events random, regardless how lawful all the other events are.

  14. Here, the mutation is random but the chain of events from the mutation to the expression of the heat resistant phenotype of the mutant organism are not random.

    Now let’s do this for natural selection.

    You just described natural selection. It is non-random variation based upon random variables.

    The chain of events from a hot climate to the death of heat sensitive organisms (and the survival of heat resistant organisms) follows scientific laws and and are not random.

    Good. You described natural selection again. In case you missed it (and you did), that scientific law which led to the increase in heat resistant organisms was natural selection.

    You’re making my points for me.

    Darwinism here disregards the non-random chain of events from a mutation in DNA to the expression of the phenotype.

    The only way this makes sense is if you’re speaking of folding. Evolution does not ignore that. Proteins which denature more easily (and may therefore be disadvantageous) are subject to natural selection. Or. Proteins which having better binding sites may be subject to natural selection.

    But I doubt you were trying to get at any of that.

    Here is a key point. An event is random as long as its original cause is random, regardless whether the chain of events from the original cause to the final event is lawful or not.

    Nothing stops me from declaring that there is some deistic being which non-randomly began the Universe and thus absolutely nothing is random. In fact, if one is to use such an inane and useless definition of “random” then we may as well pretend the word doesn’t even exist. This exercise works with your particular god as well. Again, you’re claim is that he/she/it began the Universe non-randomly. Thus, being the first cause of absolutely everything natural, nothing natural is random.

    The selection of a lottery winner is random, no one would dispute that. But the random event here is the original random picking event. But everything that follows from the original random event are all lawful and non-random. These events include the proper reading of the numbers on the ticket, the proper match of that reading with the predetermined winning number, and the proper notification of the winner. Here the non-random process does not make us call that winner non-randomly selected.

    A lottery winner is an improbable set of numbers. One cannot change the odds by throwing out the bad sets or, more to the point, by slowly selecting which individual numbers are to be used. Natural selection can and does do that. It is fundamentally different from your analogy.

  15. you have no problem with a deity. good. But the presence of a deity does not necessarily exclude the randomness of matter. The beginning is made of random matters and an intentional observer deity. Based on the random variations of matter, a deity could select the variation he sees fit and manifest that in the natural word. And the natural word version of matter still has its inherent random property, like the decay of a radio active element. A deity may also allow random mutations in a organism just in order to test structure and function relationship of a gene. This could lead her to create a more advanced organism with a more refined variant of the gene. A deity who learns and creates by way of evolution is fully consistent with the recorded history of life on Earth.

    So, the existence of a deity does not exclude randomness in nature. But the absence of a deity necessarily excludes intention in nature. thus, everything must be random or randomly caused. To say something is non-randomly caused is meaningless and fooling oneself.

    In a deity-less nature, variation is random and the differential survival is also randomly caused. To say natural selection is non-random is meaningless if non-random does not mean the presence of intention. And Darwinists surely does not mean natural selection to be intentional. If it is not intentional, it can only be random. No other alternatives.

    Only poor logic would cause one to say something is not random but is also not intentional. There is no such thing in nature. A coin toss is either random or influenced by intention. There is no third alternative that is non-random as well as non-intentional.

    I bet you are a very poor student in math just like your God Darwin. But nature’s true Deity is the best mathematician. Dare to prove me wrong by showing your transcripts?

  16. you have no problem with a deity. good.

    If you’re going to intentionally misinterpret what I say, at least fit the mold and try and quote-mine me too, creationist.

    You don’t seem to get it. Aside from the fact that you’re misdefining a term, you’re going against all the things you’ve been saying.

    An event is random as long as its original cause is random…Calling natural selection non-random is to ignore A and arbitrarily stop at B.

    You believe, out of pure delusion, that your god is the original cause of everything. If you try to describe absolute anything – nothing in the Universe excepted – as random, then you need to regress until you find its “original cause”. For you, that is some particular god (which I suspect has a strangely high number of human attributes, but I digress). This particular god for you is not random. Thus, his/her/its non-randomness means, by your convoluted logic designed purely to waste my time apparently, nothing is random.

    Here’s what you’ve said.

    1) If an original cause is random, everything which follows is random.

    2) Your particular god is the original cause of everything.

    3) Your particular god is not random.

    4) Thus, everything which exists is non-random.

    5) Thus, if evolution exists, it is non-random, no matter of what mechanism you speak.

    You either don’t understand your own ‘logic’ or you simply don’t want to confront the fact that nothing you’ve said of natural selection follows from it.

  17. What you said just proves the point that you cannot do simple logic or cannot even follow one when one is presented to you. I never said, as you claimed, that a non-random God means non-random for everything exists. What I said is that both random and non-random can coexist. Read my post 10 more times or have a math friend help you out.

    Your God, a dice-tossing God who like you and Darwin cannot do math, necessarily excludes non-randomness in nature.

    Give me one example in nature that is like natural selection defined in your way, non-random and non-intentional. I already challenged you in my last post with this point and you have dodged it. So, just admit it: natural selection is random, period. If that makes your religion looks stupid, too bad. Deal with it.

  18. just realized that you have also misread my original cause. Again, if you read my earlier post 10 more times you will find this: the original cause is made of two opposites, random/matter and non-random/intention/observer of matter.

  19. You can’t have two original causes. That’s dumb.

    Give me one example in nature that is like natural selection defined in your way, non-random and non-intentional.

    Everything which happens in Nature which is not driven by humans and which works in a lawlike and predictable way. Gravity is non-random and it is non-intentional, regardless of what you declare is its first cause.

    At any rate, this is glossing over the real point of this whole post. Natural selection operates in a lawlike manner that results in a cumulative process which creates complexity. It makes evolution probable. The fact that you want to arbitrarily call it random has no bearing on this. You’ve acknowledged that “the process of natural selection” is not random. Your beef is with “the original cause”. The original cause has no bearing on how the process works, just with what the process works.

  20. Fundamental things always come in opposite pairs. There is no random without nonrandom. No beauty without ugly. The immediate original cause of you is your mother and father. This fundamental concept is known 3000 years ago. Try educate yourself by reading “I Ching”.

    Everything which happens in Nature that work in a law like way is nonrandom, of course, and are by definition intentional. Whose intention is it? Random particles, a dice-tossing god, or a law-creating god? Pick a choice here.

  21. You say gravity is non-intentional but you have no proof of that. I say it is intentional and I dont have proof either, not until someone proves God. But your position shall remain nonprovable while mine is provable. But for now, neither of us can cite that as evidence of our respective views. We can only use things that we humans know for sure. If someone get killed by a bullet, what kind of possible explanations can there be? It can only be either random or intentional. I can give countless examples of natural things that can only be either random or intentional. In contrast, you can give not a single example of things that are non-random and non-intentional. Worst still, you cannot even explain how such things in a meaningful way. Can you use one word of meaning to describe it? No one in human history has a word for such a stupid concept. Only a stupid religion could force its blind followers to entertain such a stupid and meaningless concept.

  22. We’re trying to explain complexity. You do this by not only propsing one thing more complex than what we want to explain, but two things. It’s astounding, the creationist mindset.

  23. You keep misunderstanding my positions. I am not your typical religious creationists who believe in an all powerful/complex God. I don’t believe in religion in any form, atheism included. So, I am reason while you are religious. I only believe what reason would lead me to know. If that lead to Jesus, fine. But if not, fine too.

    You have not explained the origin of simple matters. So, you have no right to ask others to explain the origin of simple mind, a mind that knows the minimal. If a complex matter like Earth cannot just come into existence without a cause, neither can a complex mind. So you are right to ask for explanation of a complex mind. But if your position has no problem with simple matters just existing with no beginning and no end, you must also grant the same for the simplest possible mind. You say that simple matters can evolve and become complex. But I can say the same thing to simple minds. Both positions have equal amount of evidence. The complex human mind evolved from simple minds of simple organisms, like, fish. So, while the complex God of religion is an easy target for you, that line of attack wont work for a simple mind.

  24. You keep misunderstanding my positions. I am not your typical religious creationists who believe in an all powerful/complex God. I don’t believe in religion in any form, atheism included. So, I am reason while you are religious. I only believe what reason would lead me to know. If that lead to Jesus, fine. But if not, fine too.

    Typical creationist claptrap. “You are religious, I am not!” Your position is absurd. You’re saying theism and atheism are religious, thus implying agnosticism is the only thing which is not, but then you make a claim to some sort of coy theistic beliefs. I suspect you subscribe to the traditional/most popular god of your culture, but you don’t want to be upfront about it because 1) you’re a creationist and inherently a liar and 2) you recognize that religion has negative connotations and you want to avoid those.

    You have not explained the origin of simple matters. So, you have no right to ask others to explain the origin of simple mind, a mind that knows the minimal.

    Definitional bait-and-switch. You went from “simply matters” to “simple mind”.

    But if your position has no problem with simple matters just existing with no beginning and no end, you must also grant the same for the simplest possible mind.

    Definitional strawman. My position is that we seek an explanation for complexity. Yours is to arbitrarily add in a middle man that needs explanation. At not point does that mean I just ignore any first causes or possible infinities. I do not know. If you do, I hope you do good things with your nobel prize money.

    But if your position has no problem with simple matters just existing with no beginning and no end, you must also grant the same for the simplest possible mind.

    I don’t know the explanation prior to the Big Bang. I, however, am not willing to arbitrarily declare it to be something which is necessarily more complex (even if you declare that complex thing to be simple).

    You say that simple matters can evolve and become complex. But I can say the same thing to simple minds. Both positions have equal amount of evidence.

    I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say. Are you just saying that the brain has evolved in different organisms? If that’s the case, then obviously. Are you trying to say this applies to your particular god as well?

    But other than gymnastic linguistics, what is your evidence? Lay it out for me. You have made quite a habit of responding to my posts in bulk, rather than in point. Get into the nitty-gritty and give me some answers. What evidence do you have for your beliefs? What predictions are made from what you are claiming? What experiments have been carried out that support your position?

    So, while the complex God of religion is an easy target for you, that line of attack wont work for a simple mind.

    Clearly.

  25. Good that I am getting to request evidence and predictions. I would like to interpret that as a good sign. So, the idea is in principle feasible but just lacking evidence and predictions at this point. Well, keep tuned in to my future papers or books.

    Here is a simple question for you and other Darwin followers: When you say that natural selection is non random, do you believe or do you want others to believe that the product of this non random process is also non random?

    A simple yes or no would do.

  26. Just realized from an article by Dawkins that the answer is yes.

    The following is a complete rebuttal of this lie/myth.

    Darwin followers admit that random/chance cannot work, but calls natural selection nonrandom or the very opposite of chance. But they would never say natural selection is intentional or purposeful. So, is there such a thing that is nonrandom and non-intentional in nature? None what so ever in human experience. No one in history has a word for such a meaningless concept. How can anyone get away with such logical nonsense? The ID camps are equally poor in logic to allow this nonsense unchallenged (see Jonathan Wells debate with Massimo Pigliucci on youtube).

    A thing is either chance or intentional. No third alternative. Laws are non-random and intentional products of law creators. If we don’t know either way the presence or absence of God, we simply cannot use natural laws as evidence of things that are nonrandom and nonintentional. A single random event is enough to make the outcome of a chain of events random. The selector in the natural selection processes is always random in a Darwinian God-less world. The natural selection process from the selector hot weather to death of heat sensitive variants is non-random. But the selector hot weather is random, which makes the end results of natural selection random. Calling the process non-random is not wrong but is meaningless. The end result is what matters, which can only be either random or intentional. The natural selection process is non-random but the end result could still be random if the selector is randomly caused.

    Darwin followers mislead by changing the meaning of random for different terms in their theory without acknowledging it. The “random” as in variation does not mean the same thing as the “random” as in the phrase “non-random” that is used to label natural selection. The random in the former refers to the outcome of a complete chain of events from an initial mutation to the final expression of the variation phenotype. The random in the latter is only concerned with a part of a complete chain of events, i.e., the middle part linking the original event and the end result, which is the selection process linking the random selector and the end result of selection.

    Mutation in DNA is followed by variation in phenotypes. Mutation is random but the biochemical process form mutation in DNA to the expression of the mutant phenotype is not random. It is correct here to call the mutant phenotype random, because there is a random event in the chain of events from beginning to end. If this definition of random used for mutation/variation is applied to selective death of mutants due to hot weather selection, we must call these death a random outcome of a chain of events that has one random event among them, the hot weather. In a chain of events, selector to selection-process and finally to end result, the end result is random so long the selector is random, regardless whether the process is random or not. If we do not care about the process in calling variation random, we must do the same in all other cases to be internally coherent with the concept random. This could only mean calling the result of natural selection random, if the selector is random. To call such result non-random is deceiving, fooling oneself, and incoherent. This is either logical lapse or deliberate cheating by Darwin followers. Neither is genuine science.

    To be internally coherent with the word random, Darwinism can only mean this: random variations followed by random survival of fitter variants as a result of the natural selection process. (Emphasizing whether the process is random or not is meaningless here and only achieves the goal of confusing or misleading.) The two random words here in this sentence have the same meaning, and it is about the outcome of a complete chain of events. Contrast this truthful rendition of Darwinism with this popular but cheating version: random variations followed by non random survival of fitter variants as a result of the non random natural selection process. The first random means very different things from the other two random in this sentence. The lie here is that a non random process can only lead to a non random end result, when truth is that it can lead to both random and non-random results depending on the random nature of the selector.

    Some quotes from Darwin followers:

    Richard Dawkins:

    Natural selection, the non-random survival of genes in gene pools (to put it in neo-Darwinian terms rather than Darwin’s own).

    Copies of newly mutated genes are reshuffled through the gene pool by sexual reproduction, and selection removes them from the pool in a way that is non-random.

    Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random.

    Douglas Futuyma:
    “Chance” does not mean lack of purpose or goal in science. If it did, we could say that absolutely everything in the natural world is by chance because we don’t see any purpose or goal in storms, in ocean currents, or anything else. Evolution certainly does involve randomness; it does involve unpredictable chance. For example, the origin of new genetic variation by mutation is a process that involves a great deal of chance. Genetic drift, the process I referred to earlier, is a matter of chance.

    However, natural selection itself is the single process in evolution that is the antithesis of chance. It is predictable. It says that, within a specific environmental context, one genotype will be better than another genotype in survival or reproduction for certain reasons having to do with the way its particular features relate to the environment or relate to other organisms within the population. That provides predictability and consistency. So, if you have different populations with the same opportunity for evolution, you would get the same outcome.

    Let us just pick Futuyma here and see how confused and incoherent he is.

    If chance does not mean lack of purpose, it can only mean presence of purpose. So chance is purpose or presence of purpose in science. What kind of concept is that? Any real world examples of such stupid things? Then what is purpose and what is the opposite of purpose in science? There is unpredictable chance as in mutations. So chance here in science does mean lack of purpose since no one would say mutation has purpose, just qualified by unpredictable. Then is there such a thing as predictable chance?

    Matter has no purpose, only mind has. In a world without mind, purpose is meaningless. Is there a thing that has purpose but no mind? Gravity laws have purpose and are nonrandom. But no one knows what/who created gravity laws. So, one cannot use gravity laws as an example of things that are both nonrandom and non-intentional.

    If chance means lack of purpose, we cannot say absolutely everything in the natural world is by chance. Because if we say that, it would mean that we know there is no intention/God. And we don’t know that. There is nothing known in science that can exclude the coexistence of chance and intention in nature. Darwinism has not excluded God in the evolution process. The Darwinian story of evolution is incoherent for the simple fact that it has countless contradictions. It is contradicted by both the fossil record and the DNA record, the only types of evidence one could have for evolution.

    So, in a Godless world demanded by Darwinian science, chance is given a meaning that has purpose. No human intuition could picture such a senseless thing. If Darwin followers must require us to accept senseless phrases like “chance means presence of purpose in science”, it simple means that their theory is anti-intuitive. For all we know, genuine science like math and physics are based on intuitions. Anti-intuition is self-defeating. Nothing in science that is not ultimately intuitively sensible. Earth is flat is intuitive for ancient humans but is ultimately intuitive too for modern humans.

  27. Given that you refuse to answer any of my points, I am doing the same for you.

    If you’re going to declare your definition of non-random to be “something intentional”, then when you make the argument that anything without intention is thus random, you’ll win that argument every time. It isn’t difficult to knock down strawmen.

  28. It is not a constructive argument against evolution to claim that it is “random”. The challenge should instead be, “Evolution is reliant on the emergence in DNA of order from noise by means of natural selection. Order can never be extracted from noise without informed action.”

    In response to this challenge atheists* are required to show that order can arise from noise without informed action.

    *Theists who believe in evolution might answer that God provides order to the noise which is why my challenge is only aimed at atheists.

  29. My definition of non random is what is found in any dictionary. And is the only sensible one possible as far as human is concerned. What is your definition then? Truth is you dont even have one. By calling gravity non-intentional, you are stealing someone’s work without acknowledging him.

    Dawkins said: “If evolution worked by chance, it obviously couldn’t work at all.” So, it is a very powerful argument against Darwinian evolution to say it is random.

    I have proven with simple logic that natural selection is as random as anything that is random. By Darwin followers’ own criterion (if natural selection is random, it could not work), this in turn proves that Darwin’s theory could not work. And it does not. Just take a look at the countless factual contradictions, as well as the numerous logical mistakes made by the Darwin followers that are truly astonishing and insulting to human intellect.

  30. In response to this challenge atheists* are required to show that order can arise from noise without informed action.

    Atheists are required to do nothing. Science shows this again and again. But if you must.

    When did your particular god intervene here?

  31. Just for curiosity, who first made the claim that natural selection the process is non random? It seems to me from his book that Darwin did not say this. Was it Dawkins?

  32. If you don’t want to respond to the challenge, Michael, no, you’re right. You don’t have to do anything.

    But it seems you’re trying to say something regardless. Would you mind explaining what that is? Because the fact that snails are different depending on their environment is not news, nor a challenge to biological understanding and nor a challenge to belief in God.

    Any time you have a relevant reply, feel free to post it. The good professor and I both have pretty reasonable points.

  33. The only way something like this can emerge, according to you, is by something non-random. To your creationist mind, that means your particular god must have intervened here. At what point did he do this? Point out for me the precise moment where his O So Great intention reared its ugly head. When did he changed the protein regulation?

    To use a more obtuse example, let’s take any old mutation. Say this mutation forms a slightly better protein and is thus advantageous. A single base substitution constitutes this mutation, for the sake of argument. Tell me how you know your non-random, intentional god intervened and changed one base pair into another base pair. Do not repeat all the rubbish you’ve spewed so far. Tell me precisely how you see that a base pair has been changed by your particular god.

  34. The only way something like this can emerge, according to you, is by something non-random. To your creationist mind, that means your particular god must have intervened here. At what point did he do this? Point out for me the precise moment where his O So Great intention reared its ugly head. When did he changed the protein regulation?

    Are you a computer programmer? Can you write code to respond to user input? Do you have to change anything when the user makes an entry and pushes enter?

    His intent and acts of creation were completed on the sixth day.

    Everything since then is what we might properly refer to as evolution (though I’ll not use that word to describe it).

  35. So you have a hands-off, deistic god?

  36. If human can allow randomness to play a role in their society once a while, like using coin toss to decide who serves first in a tennis match, why cannot God do that to his universe?

  37. A “hands-off” God? At times, yeah.

    Did you think I believe He was making you write everything you have?

  38. So, when that mutation is maintained in a population, is that the work of your particular god? I’m just wondering where you arbitrarily insert your beliefs into reality.

  39. I don’t.

  40. Darwin’s logical errors

    I reread a part of Darwin’s book on the topic of natural selection to see if he ever said that natural selection is not random. I did not find it. But I was astonished to find that his logical lapses could ever got printed for all to see.

    Darwin wrote:
    “Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the co adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through nature’s power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest.”
    “(Talking about human breeding, Darwin had this to say) Ultimately, after the lapse of centuries, these sub-breeds would become converted into two well-established and distinct breeds. As the differences became greater, the inferior animals with intermediate characters, being neither swift nor very strong, would not have been used for, breeding, and will thus have tended to disappear. Here, then, we see in man’s productions the action of what may be called the principle of divergence, causing differences, at first barely appreciable, steadily to increase, and the breeds to diverge in character, both from each other and from their common parent.
    But how, it may be asked, can any analogous principle apply in nature? I believe it can and does apply most efficiently (though it was a long time before I saw how).”

    The above is what Darwin wrote on natural selection in two separate places in his famous book. It astonishes me to see that he can equate human breeding with natural selection, without acknowledging any difference between the two. It does not follow at all logically that if human breeding can do amazing things, then natural selection over longer time can do even more amazing things. The unspoken assumption here is that time is the only variable. But it is not. Intention/intelligence/mind is the other key variable. If humans want to breed a drought resistant crop, they would not allow the crop experience cycles of drought and flood. But natural selection can do no such things. The natural cycles of drought and flood would never produce a drought resistant breed no matter how much time it is allowed to work its magical Darwinian power.

    You cannot find a better proof for the kind of logical ability, or should we say illogical, that Darwin had. When he cannot do simple high school mathematics, what can you expect? What is truly amazing is this kind of logical lapses have been viewed as ‘science’ for 150 years.

  41. That’s an excellent point!

  42. Well, if nature is unable to produce adaptations, then I guess when we see any single mutation that is maintained in the population, it was your particular god that changed the base pair and then made sure it remained through time, right?

    Tell me all about the gene that keeps lactase “switched on”. It’s a relatively recent gene that has been maintained in many human populations. When, specifically, did your god non-randomly make sure to keep this gene kicking around?

  43. Everyone fully grants the proven virtues of NeoDarwinism in microevolution. The issue is whether macroevo is just prolonged microevo. It is fully consistent with every known fact if someone says that God only got involved directly at the most critical moment during macroevo once in some million years and totally left the day to day microevo random business alone. This is a realistic possibility that has yet to be refuted by reason by anybody. So it is not a scientific attitude to rule it out without reason and evidence. When the issue is about the most fundamental, no opinion should be excluded without logical reasons.

    In human experience, it is the rule rather than the exception that small changes never amount to big changes. Relativity theory is one example. No matter how many improvements Darwin followers make on Darwinism, you would never expect any of them to make a revolutionary advance that would make a joke of Darwin in the most fundamental ways. Such a change could only come from someone who has no vested interest in defending Darwin and never made a single improvement in his flawed theory.

  44. Everyone fully grants the proven virtues of NeoDarwinism in microevolution. The issue is whether macroevo is just prolonged microevo.

    No, the issue is whether something can be non-random and unintentional. If you are granting that microevolution occurs without the help of your god, then you just undermined your entire argument that non-random must be intentional.

  45. Nonrandom macroevo is intentional, an intention of God. Random microevo is nonintentional. So what is the problem? Again, no such thing as nonrandom and nonintentional.

  46. Okay, so small changes are unintentional and thus random. So why do we see repeatable patterns where natural selection experiments are carried out? Why did the fish in the upper pond dull in color when the predator fish were introduced? Is it all just a tremendous coincidence?

  47. A typical Darwin follower would say this: “The only thing random about natural selection is the source of the variation upon which it acts. And even that may not be as random as we have always supposed, as recent research has indicated that selective pressures (that is, the environment) can influence the sorts of mutations which are most likely to occurr. In the classic view, though, still workable now, the variation is random with respect to its fitness; random with respect to the environment.”

    I use the same meaning for the word random as a Darwinian would use and find environmental change to be just as random as variation:
    “The change in environment is random with respect to organisms’ fitness; random with respect to the organism.”

    So long the introduction of the predator fish is random with respect to the fitness of the fish in the upper pond, which it is if it is not caused by human intention, then the dull color is a random result of the random introduction of the predator fish. The process of natural selection is not random here but is irrelevant. Remember, you only need one random event in a chain of events to make the outcome random.

    Random Earthquake kills a person. The process is quick loss of blood leading to stop of heart beat, which is not random. But everyone would say that this is random death due to a random environmental change. If this random accidental Earthquake somehow leads to the differential survival of a population of people who lose blood slowly, it is just a random result of a random accident.

  48. I’m going to try and cut through your linguistic gymnastics.

    So long the introduction of the predator fish is random with respect to the fitness of the fish in the upper pond, which it is if it is not caused by human intention, then the dull color is a random result of the random introduction of the predator fish.

    So then, instead of the 271 words you typed you could have just used four to say, “Yes, it is random.” So you believe it is just a tremendous coincidence that there was a color change. By the by, the predator was later removed and vibrant colors rebounded. But I guess that was simply random because Event A was random. But then we have to go back to your particular god, don’t we?! And he doesn’t do random! But he does because he must work with nonrandom! Because there are two first causes – god and some unidentified randomness! Matter? Some physical law? Who cares? It’s just convenient.

    I mean this with the utmost honesty. You have the most inconsistent, messed up system of mental contortionism I have ever read.

  49. So what is bugging you the most? The coexistence of God/intention and matter/randomness? Is that it?

    I don’t understand why this simple idea is so hard to swallow for you. What are some of the logical reasons for your difficulty to understand this?

  50. Putting aside the fact that this discussion wholly misses the point of this article, it’s almost humorous that you think by using the word “logical” and touting your supposed math skills, all the things you say somehow become true through declaration.

    Two first causes makes no sense. You’re proposing (out of convenience) that your particular god and some unidentified randomness have existed at either some precise moment simultaneously or they have always existed. Most people only add the one middle man to comfort their philosophy. You’ve gone ahead and tacked on a middle something (I’d identify it more specifically, but you’re being intentionally vague).

    But let’s come back to my main topic that you refuse to address. (My post about ignoring points was not based upon you, but it may as well have been.) You believe that the dominance of dull colored fish in the above example is random. You say this is because the initial predator introduction was random (for the sake of argument, we can propose that something similar has occurred without human intervention). You admit (though claim irrelevancy) that the process itself was not random. Except that it is random because the introduction was random. Okay, that’s stupid, but I understand what you’re saying. Now let’s keep stepping back.

    Here’s the principle behind your religion: anything which is caused by something random is, itself, random. Okay, I still understand. Now, let’s extend this to one of the particular gods of your culture. He doesn’t do random. Therefore, anything he has done is not random, no matter how far down the line one goes. But wait! He only exists with randomness. So, if there was no randomness, would your claim be that your particular god could not exist? Or are you saying the Universe could no exist? Let me run you through the thought process.

    What is the randomness, anyway? Is it composed of something physical? If that is the case, let me knock down that position right now by pointing out that your god, in order to start the Universe, must exist outside it. In other words, a physical randomness would necessarily be after your particular god, not with him. So, it must be that this randomness existed prior to the Universe. Are you then saying your particular god can only exist if this is the case? Or are you saying the Universe can only exist if this is the case?

    Once you’ve resolved this logical absurdity (and baseless metaphysical claims), let’s readdress where your particular god intervenes with base substitutions and their maintenance (or weeding away) within a population.

  51. which one is stupid: if your father died of an earthquake, you say
    1. it was a random death.
    or
    2. it was a non random death due to the non random biochemical process of bleeding to death.

    Both are factually true. But one is extreme stupidity that any child can see.

    you are not making sense with your thought process. Purely for the sake of logical exercise, nothing can exclude this statement that matter/random and mind/intention have always existed together and will forever exist within this universe. No mind no matter, known from quantum physics. No matter no mind, known from the effects of messing up your brain with drugs. No beauty no ugly. No random no nonrandom and vice versa.

  52. Address the points and questions directly. Glossing adds nothing.

  53. Mike, I want to understand your argument a bit better.

    The non-random “sieve” that filters out the surviving generations is the Physical Environment?

    What determines the makeup of the physical environment and the other, competing organisms that drive natural selection?

  54. It is the interaction between the physical environment and the other genes present. We may well call it all random if we only mean the environment, but differential survival – the ability for certain genes to out-compete other genes – is the key.

  55. if the physical environment isnt random in nature, then whos selecting who and who decides what fits and whats not? was the mutation random since natural selection acts as not random? or this is system is only theoretically evolutionized by the darwinians that natural selection is the law of evolution? if i would consider nature id find codes and systems already inplaced like the equiangular spiral or the golden numbers. they are not random but systematically designed.

    if nature has its own natural law then who picks the design?
    did the egg came first or the chicken?
    why not 4 breasts instead of 2?
    why 2 feet instead of 4?
    what brought the skeletal system to have muscles?
    how was it transformed by a simple cell structure?
    who decides the cold weather and the hot weather?
    why arent humans bisexual?
    who kills the wrong ones and keeps the right ones?
    did the brain came first or the blood from the heart?
    so many questions linger on the evolution theory that darwin brought out from just observing nature that is already there.

    nature speaks with complexities and abstract designs yet with systematic pattern and functioning devices.

    we only rely our understanding on natural law and physics base on observation, for example gravity, its already there we only have to realize we are falling.

    we cant create, we cant recreate thats why we cant just make conclusions base on evolution… infact evolution is still in its process of figuring things out and producing evidence that they need quantum computers to help them simulate big bang theory, or split matters in Large Hadron Collider to figure the existence of dark matter or god particle.

    evolutionists keep looking for their evidence while pretend they are right.

    in contrast some other scientists keep finding out that the world did not cooled down millions of years/ example: the polonium halo found in granites 3,000 – 15,000 feet underground sights rocks and granites cooled down in short period of time, not millions or else it wouldn’t catch its halo rings like the Alka seltzer bubbles when put on water, you cant catch them in raw form or you will have plain glass of water after 2 minutes.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers

%d bloggers like this: