Deism - solid?

[Peter]

Your definition of luck here is not the same as chance. Your definition of luck here relates to good and bad fortune. There is a huge difference. In this sense evolution attempts to get rid of bad fortune and lock in good fortune. This could easily be considered as intent/purpose or design.

So good luck and bad luck aren't the same as good fortune and bad fortune?

I'm sure you're quite capable of obfuscating this discussion beyond all recognition and if that's what you intend to do I'll bow out now.

NS boils down to the fittest survive. I don't see any conscious intent in that. Nothing makes a conscious decision who will survive. NS is simply a filter that all life must pass through.

No intelligence is necessary for a hole to sort things.

Excellent analogy. The hole also doesn't have any intention to sort things, it just does.

[truthreality]

So good luck and bad luck aren't the same as good fortune and bad fortune?

Ok. Are you saying natural selection is chance or not?

[truthreality]

The simplest way to imagine this was enumerated by Dawkins: a hole. The hole is a selecting force such that objects small enough to pass through it end up on the bottom where objects that are too large cannot pass through. While natural selection is nowhere near as simple it operates on the same principle. No intelligence is necessary for a hole to sort things.

That the process is automated does little to reject an argument from design. Automated processes are designed all the time. You have stated that natural selection is no where near as simple as a hole. Does not discernment rely on intelligence especially as the process becomes more and more complex? In other words wouldn't a complex sorting process dependent on an intelligent agent for design?

[truthreality]

the selection in natural selection doesnt refer to a choice, but to the environment basically applying pressure that causes the less fit organisms to die off, solely as a function of their own shortcomings, or the more fit organisms to thrive as a function of their own advantages.

And the blind process doesnt differentiate. The environment is the context in which the organism is deemed fit or not. a mutation that causes blindness in a previously sighted organism makes the organism less able to defend itself, and allows predators to more easily catch that organism and kill it. But if that mutation were to cause bigger claws that cause more damage to predators, the organism is more likely to be able to survive an encounter with that predator.

However, some mutations are neither beneficial or detrimental, at least not to the point where it confers a specific advantage or detriment in the context of the specific environment. change the environment, and the mutation might become beneficial or detrimental.

and mutations occur due to a number of different things. Cosmic radiation can hit a strand of DNA and cause a mutation. Environmental radiation can do the same. Its not as if something is pointing a cosmic ray gun at us and forcing mutation. when an event occurs that produces the radiation, it emits it in a direction that is a product of the specific configuration of the system. if something happens to be in a place at a time where it will strike a strand of DNA, it might cause a mutation.

hell, even simple errors in copying cause mutations. a base pair gets doubled, or an adenine gets swapped with a guanine, and causes the expression of the gene to change.

unless the entire universe is deterministic down to the subatomic level, chance is involved in at least some of the events in the universe. And if some are, then its possible that they all are

If we can predict that certain mutations will occur under certain circumstances and if we can predict whether or not that mutation is beneficial, detrimental or neutral under certain circumstances how is that chance? Doesn't the predictive power of evolution and natural selection contradict the process being based on chance?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

If we can predict that certain mutations will occur under certain circumstances and if we can predict whether or not that mutation is beneficial, detrimental or neutral under certain circumstances how is that chance? Doesn't the predictive power of evolution and natural selection contradict the process being based on chance?

Im not aware of a circumstance where we are able to predict what mutations will occur when, and whether or not they will be beneificial or detrimental.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

That the process is automated does little to reject an argument from design. Automated processes are designed all the time. You have stated that natural selection is no where near as simple as a hole. Does not discernment rely on intelligence especially as the process becomes more and more complex? In other words wouldn't a complex sorting process dependent on an intelligent agent for design?

I wouldnt call it automated. its a passive action based on the properties of the environment. And the process itself is not all that complicated. beneficial mutations, in context of the environment, are able to be passed on due to the mutation conferring an advantage to survival of the organism. detrimental mutations, in context of the environment, are less able to be passed on due to the mutation conferring a penalty to the survival of the organism. But not all mutations are either beneficial or detrimental enough to be selected for or against.

and you seem to be wanting to attribute discernment to the process when the process doesnt discern anything. to use the hole analogy, the smaller objects are not actively selected for, they just happen to have properties that are advantageous to passing though the hole. the hole doesnt examine the object and decide that its small enough to pass.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Ok. Are you saying natural selection is chance or not?

the process of natural selection is not chance. the chance is involved in the actual mutation itself, and whether or not it is going to be beneficial in the environment. two different organisms with the exact same mutation may be "sorted" differently due to how the the mutation relates to the environment.

[truthreality]

the process of natural selection is not chance. the chance is involved in the actual mutation itself, and whether or not it is going to be beneficial in the environment. two different organisms with the exact same mutation may be "sorted" differently due to how the the mutation relates to the environment.

In other words mutations depend on certain variables such as environment? How is this chance?

[truthreality]

Im not aware of a circumstance where we are able to predict what mutations will occur when, and whether or not they will be beneificial or detrimental.

I don't think predictability in science relates to fortune telling. I think predictability in science relates to testability. Correct me if I am wrong but I think we can make predictions based on mutations in a laboratory setting. I am not sure to what extent, however.

[truthreality]

I wouldnt call it automated. its a passive action based on the properties of the environment. And the process itself is not all that complicated. beneficial mutations, in context of the environment, are able to be passed on due to the mutation conferring an advantage to survival of the organism. detrimental mutations, in context of the environment, are less able to be passed on due to the mutation conferring a penalty to the survival of the organism. But not all mutations are either beneficial or detrimental enough to be selected for or against.

and you seem to be wanting to attribute discernment to the process when the process doesnt discern anything. to use the hole analogy, the smaller objects are not actively selected for, they just happen to have properties that are advantageous to passing though the hole. the hole doesnt examine the object and decide that its small enough to pass.

So in this analogy detrimental mutations are large objects and advantageous mutations are smaller objects? Is natural selection a filter then? What happens to neutral mutations?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

So in this analogy detrimental mutations are large objects and advantageous mutations are smaller objects? Is natural selection a filter then? What happens to neutral mutations?

essentially, yes. Natural selection is more akin to a filter than an active process. Any mutation that does not have an impact on survival (or neutral mutations) isnt filtered.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I don't think predictability in science relates to fortune telling. I think predictability in science relates to testability. Correct me if I am wrong but I think we can make predictions based on mutations in a laboratory setting. I am not sure to what extent, however.

did I say fortune telling? no. I simply said that I am not aware of a circumstance in which we are able to tell what mutation will happen when. If it were predictable, we would have cancer beat already.

An example:Exposure to radiation can mutate DNA, but the best we can do is predict a possible increase in the cancer probability from radiation exposure, not what kind of cancer or where it will develop.

If you have a circumstance that would support your above idea, im all ears. Im just not aware of one that would.