If it's not designed, it must be random(!), right?

[Roboramma]

To Iamme, what is wrong with the arguments below?

How could random(!) processes create all the order we see in the world?

Why, look at the earth. It's a giant sphere. What are the chances of that? I mean, why isn't pyramid shaped or the shape of a large apple pie? The moon orbits it in an elliptical orbit that's pretty close to circular, how'd that work out? Why doesn't it do figure eights? Or make an outline of the word "God"?

The planets in the solar system orbit the sun in a relatively flat place, how'd that happen? If it was all [i]random/i](!) like you science types say, wouldn't the planets just be scattered in a huge spherical space around out? How'd they line up so nicely?

How is it that the organisms that are alive today all happen to have inherited their genes from ancestors that we on average more well suited to their environments than their contemporaries?
How is it that all those organisms are well adapted to their environments? I mean, if it's all random(!) like you say?

How is it that so much of the earth's water is collected in the oceans and not on continents? Why is it all gathered together to such a degree? If water moves around without any intelligent design, why isn't it all randomly distributed over the earth's surface? And why is it that all the water that isn't in the oceans is making it's way back to them? Perhaps someone wants it there?

Clearly these things couldn't come about by random(!) processes. And if not, there must be an intelligent force behind them. Something that wanted them to turn out that way.

[EGarrett]

Random elements can produce nonrandom results. And I'm not entirely convinced that the title of this thread isn't a false dichotomy...

[KingMerv00]

To Iamme, what is wrong with the arguments below?

How could random(!) processes create all the order we see in the world?

Why, look at the earth. It's a giant sphere. What are the chances of that? I mean, why isn't pyramid shaped or the shape of a large apple pie? The moon orbits it in an elliptical orbit that's pretty close to circular, how'd that work out? Why doesn't it do figure eights? Or make an outline of the word "God"?

The planets in the solar system orbit the sun in a relatively flat place, how'd that happen? If it was all [i]random/i](!) like you science types say, wouldn't the planets just be scattered in a huge spherical space around out? How'd they line up so nicely?

How is it that the organisms that are alive today all happen to have inherited their genes from ancestors that we on average more well suited to their environments than their contemporaries?
How is it that all those organisms are well adapted to their environments? I mean, if it's all random(!) like you say?

How is it that so much of the earth's water is collected in the oceans and not on continents? Why is it all gathered together to such a degree? If water moves around without any intelligent design, why isn't it all randomly distributed over the earth's surface? And why is it that all the water that isn't in the oceans is making it's way back to them? Perhaps someone wants it there?

Clearly these things couldn't come about by random(!) processes. And if not, there must be an intelligent force behind them. Something that wanted them to turn out that way.

I tried to start a thread on this topic in the Science forum. Heck, I even used planets as an example. At first, there was a list of "violations" of the 2nd law of thermodynamics but it was promptly threadjacked by the local loonies.

I wish you better luck.

[HeyLeroy]

Iamme:
And how does a thermos know to keep hot things hot and cold things cold?
When I tried bringing soup and a popsicle to work, the thermos let me down. Does this mean god doesn't love me?

Good luck, Robo!

[PatKelley]

When I tried bringing soup and a popsicle to work, the thermos let me down. Does this mean god doesn't love me?


Yes, because you touch yourself at night.

[HeyLeroy]

Yes, because you touch yourself at night.
I thought that's why he killed kittens.

[Cosmo]

I was in the midst of typing out a serious response to the OP, but then I reread the first sentence in that post. :)

[Roboramma]

Random elements can produce nonrandom results. And I'm not entirely convinced that the title of this thread isn't a false dichotomy...
Exactly. I just find it so obnoxious when people keep calling evolution a random process.

It has random elements, and is somewhat contingent upon them, but it is guided by natural selection. Much in the same way as the formation of planets has random elements and is somewhat contingent upon them (for instance where the matter started out, how much of it there is, etc), but is guided by the force of gravity. This can give ordered results in spite of the fact that there are random elements involved.

Neither is a purposeful process, but that doesn't make it random.

Quite a few posters don't seem to get the distinction. And a lot of people ridicule evolution with questions like, "how could random evolution explain the complexity we see in the world?"
Because it isn't random!

[3point14]

Is it the case that the mutations are random, but what is selected to prosper is based on environment, and therefore not at all random?

I only ask, because I read on another thread (I think) that the mutation itself wasn't random, and I don't quite understand that.

My understanding of the subject may be incomplete, the majority of it garnered from a Terry Pratchett book.

[pgwenthold]

Quite a few posters don't seem to get the distinction. And a lot of people ridicule evolution with questions like, "how could random evolution explain the complexity we see in the world?"
Because it isn't random!

And nominally, it really isn't that _complex_. Well, not near as complex as it would be if it were all random.

Keep in mind that if it were completely random, we would have to have an independent explanation for every data point. There are way too many patterns in nature for it to be random. What they call "complexity" is actually _order_.

The more relevent question is "how could random evolution explain the order we see in the world?" To that, the answer is, it's not random.

[Shadownexius]

In responce to the random theory or concept above:

If this is random..Humans are not random, it is impossible for any organism to randomly gain an active conscience that is self-aware on a level as that of humans. In many level I will list below, show that random is not possible or even a theory for us as humans.

1. Humans can refer to themselves as I, We, Me, etc we can refer to ourselves in the first, third, and second person views. In all of nature no other animal is capable of viewing itself in all three persons (views).
2. Humans can not be the result of random chance, but the result of percise design. If this was not so, then the balance of the universe would not obey the laws of physics, time and space; having the opposite balancing factor of black holes. Black holes are theorized as having the same gravitational wake of a star, but the laws of physics, time, space are either none existent or uncertain, unlike the constant laws the apply to us here.
3. Last and not least, if we are by random then why would humans theorize? Reason, intelligene is not the evolution of a species by chance. Monkeys dont wake up one generation and eat bannas, then wake up three generations later, making fire.

[Dancing David]

In responce to the random theory or concept above:

If this is random..Humans are not random, it is impossible for any organism to randomly gain an active conscience that is self-aware on a level as that of humans. In many level I will list below, show that random is not possible or even a theory for us as humans.

And why not please demonstrate your chain that led to these assertions. If you has chosen to read the above posts then you would already know that evolution is not a random process, it is driven by the partly random process of genetic mutation.

1. Humans can refer to themselves as I, We, Me, etc we can refer to ourselves in the first, third, and second person views. In all of nature no other animal is capable of viewing itself in all three persons (views).

More bold assertions, evidences?

2. Humans can not be the result of random chance, but the result of percise design. If this was not so, then the balance of the universe would not obey the laws of physics, time and space; having the opposite balancing factor of black holes. Black holes are theorized as having the same gravitational wake of a star, but the laws of physics, time, space are either none existent or uncertain, unlike the constant laws the apply to us here.

I am unable to understand what that means, could you break it down for me how humans are like black holes?
And what the heck is a constant law? Do you mean gravity?

3. Last and not least, if we are by random then why would humans theorize? Reason, intelligene is not the evolution of a species by chance. Monkeys dont wake up one generation and eat bannas, then wake up three generations later, making fire.

Uh I hate to point this out but humans are APES not monkeys and the process of evolution tookk millions of years from Lucy to humans. Early humans didn't make fire, they scavenged animals killed by other critters, fire came later.

[BJQ87]

I haven't gotten much of an explaination of how evolution wouldn't be random. And to say humans aren't random therefore evolution isn't random is to completely assume that evolution is true. Random elements can produce nonrandom results? I might agree with this but first I ask for an example, second I ask for how this can be applied to evolution. I haven't got much of a conception of this idea.

Perhaps random elements cannot produce nonrandom elements but only nonrandom results and that would be why evolution must be random? Would a random element be able to create matter or would it require a designer?

[BJQ87]

And to say humans aren't random therefore evolution isn't random is to completely assume that evolution is true.

I realise now that you were probably saying that if evolution is true it can't be random. But if thats the case all you have to accept is that evolution is random and then so doing you accept that evolution is false.

[Roboramma]

I haven't gotten much of an explanation of how evolution wouldn't be random. And to say humans aren't random therefore evolution isn't random is to completely assume that evolution is true. Random elements can produce nonrandom results? I might agree with this but first I ask for an example, second I ask for how this can be applied to evolution. I haven't got much of a conception of this idea.

Perhaps random elements cannot produce nonrandom elements but only nonrandom results and that would be why evolution must be random? Would a random element be able to create matter or would it require a designer?

BJ, natural selection is not random. That's the whole point. It isn't random which animal reproduces.

Look at it this way - say you've got a population of arctic foxes.

By random chance one or more of them are born with a mutation that causes their fur to grow in less thickly in the winter.
Do you think it's random chance that determines now which foxes die that winter? Do you think whether not those foxes reproduce is completely random and has nothing to do with the above mutation?

Or does the presence of that mutation tell us something about the chances of those foxes reproducing and passing on that mutation?

But now let's change the scenario. A warming spell hits the arctic for a few thousand years. Maybe the whole earth's climate is changing. Now those foxes with that mutation are doing fine through the winter. In fact, they're doing better than the other foxes who don't have that mutation because they don't have to eat as much in order to produce and look after all that thick fur.
They pass on that mutation. Soon, because those with that gene are surviving longer and having more offspring than those without it, it begins to become prevalent in the population.
After some time there are very few or even no foxes without this new gene.

Was that a random process?

Was it random that the foxes that happened (by chance) to be better suited to life in their environment produced more offspring?

That's natural selection. Mutations are random, but which ones are passed on isn't.

This is why I brought up the example of gravity. Knowing the gravitational constant of the universe, or understanding the general theory of relativity won't tell you where the earth was going to form it's orbit around the sun. For that you need to know where the matter was in the baby solar system. It's contingent upon the random variation in the way the gases that formed our solar system were laid out, and how much of them there were.
But we still know that they will come together, that if there's enough of them they will form a star and maybe some planets.
Because while the components may be arrayed randomly, the process that brings them together is certainly not.

The same is true of evolution - the mutations that natural selection works with may be random, but the process itself is not.

[Roboramma]

I realise now that you were probably saying that if evolution is true it can't be random. But if thats the case all you have to accept is that evolution is random and then so doing you accept that evolution is false.

I'm not sure who you're responding to with this, but I'll reply... :)

The point I'm trying to make in this thread has nothing to do with humans being random or not. The point is this - the process of evolution described by the theory of evolution is not a random process.

This is not based upon seeing life as non-random and then inferring that evolution is not random. It's based on the fact that the theory itself does not suggest that it's random.
See my above post to see how there are random elements (mutation, I guess genetic drift, etc.) but there is also a very important non-random element - natural selection.

It is the action of this non-random element that brings all the startling order to the natural world.

[BJQ87]

This is why I brought up the example of gravity. Knowing the gravitational constant of the universe, or understanding the general theory of relativity won't tell you where the earth was going to form it's orbit around the sun. For that you need to know where the matter was in the baby solar system. It's contingent upon the random variation in the way the gases that formed our solar system were laid out, and how much of them there were.


I was looking for more of an explaination of how those gases appeared. You say the gases that formed our system were laid out randomly, when you say "laid out randomly" you mean created randomly? If so, then how can matter be randomly created? If the gasses weren't created then where'd they come from? Is the whole purpose of evolution to say humans came from apes, apes came from whatever, whatever came from etc., etc. came from gasses- because it's easier to believe that gasses came from nothing rather to say that humans or apes came from nothing? What difference does it make, it is still matter all the same.

That's why I suggested- Perhaps random elements cannot produce nonrandom elements but only nonrandom results and that would be why evolution must be (I now change "random" to "false")? Would a random element be able to create matter or would it require a designer?

[BJQ87]

How does this non-random element of natural selection come about? How does it control the way things are processed as a law of reality? Did it come about by something random? If so then what random something is that and how did it bring about a non-random element such as natural selection? I think the main problem I have with evolution is that it seemingly says that very complex and very miraculous, full of life, non-random elements can come about, in a grand scale altogether- randomly.

[cyborg]

I think the main problem I have with evolution is that it seemingly says that very complex and very miraculous, full of life, non-random elements can come about, in a grand scale altogether- randomly.

Ignoring what you think it seemingly says to what it does...

Evolution in a nut-shell:

Look, it's not that difficult to grasp. You have a population of agents that reproduce asexually. They exist in some environment. Their ability to reproduce is dependent on how well they operate in the environment.

Assume they all start off as totally equivalent in their ability to reproduce (i.e. they are all clones). There will be no bias at all as to who will reproduce. Hence there is no bias to produce organisms that operate better in a given environement than their ancestors. You will merely have a lot of copies of the same organism.

Now introduce some randomness into the system. This randomness will cause successive organisms to differ slightly from their parents. This difference will in turn affect their ability to operate in the given environment. There will now be a bias as to which organisms can operate better in a given environment. This in turn will enevitably lead to those that operate better reproducing better. Hence their offspring will be better able to operate in the given environment.

You end up with populations of things that are better able to operate in the given environment. And since in the real-world these things form the environment you end up with a compexly interacting system of organisms that are constantly reacting to each other's random changes.

Now if you could just get past the emotive idea that some things are miraculously 'full-of-life' and other things are not we might be able to progress onto abiogenesis.

The major point here is the willingness for carbon to form complex structures completely naturally. It is simply a chemical property of carbon. You can even get self-replicating chemicals that one would certainly not consider alive.

The problem you have is that you cannot see the wood for the trees. You refuse to see beyond the whole item to consider the individuals. You fail to appreciate how simple interactions on a large scale form complex systems.

[Dancing David]

How does this non-random element of natural selection come about? How does it control the way things are processed as a law of reality? Did it come about by something random? If so then what random something is that and how did it bring about a non-random element such as natural selection? I think the main problem I have with evolution is that it seemingly says that very complex and very miraculous, full of life, non-random elements can come about, in a grand scale altogether- randomly.


Random does not mean without order it means that if a system has freedom to be in different states then which states it is in have an equal probability of occuring, I think that is your main issue here, besides the ontological one.

Random does not mean 'chaotic' in the philosophical sense, it means that events occur in an evenly distributed fashion.

Einstein did a paer upon Brownian motion in fluids that is based upon the random movements of fluid molecules, it does not mean that a particle in suspension suddenly zoomz across the fluid, it means that the particle jostles around in a bounded area and is subject to gravity.

Quantum physics is based upon a notion of pure randomness, if a particle exists in a space it has an equal probability of occuring in that space, however that space is bounded, an electron may not leave it's probaility zone, it is constrained to remain there unless acted upon by an outside force. The position of an electron in it's 'shell' is assumed to be random at any given moment, but it is contrained in a very predictable fashion to the shell. It may not just zoom out of it.

So the 'random' in the theory of evolution, it is not a law, is constrained randomness, if there is a break and mistake in the genetic code it is constrained to four states at the gene level, it has to be one of four states A,T,C,G in the split DNA helix. The mutation does not just preoduce random reslts, there is a complex interaction in the cell that the genes code for, when the gene is activated, how it effects the cell chemistry and the manifestation of that chemistry are all constrained. A single gene change can not just cause wierd stuff to happen, it is constrained by the interactions of the cellular mechanisms.

Steven J. Gould once talked about random distribution in an essay, he talked about going to cave in the Mediterranean where the ceiling was covered with glow worms, and how is was not like the random distribution of stars in the nights sky, each glow worm was comfortable only if they were a certain distance from the other glow worm, so they were evenly distributed against the ceiling of the cave. They were very orderly as compared to the semi-random patterns in the night sky. Each worm was probably randomly placed within it's comfort zone, but it still produced a more ordered system.

Random does not mean unordered, it means that given freedom to be in various states a system will evenly distribute those states.

[David Swidler]

Fine. Natural selection isn't random. We've established that.

However, what hasn't been adequately explained is the random mutations that "just happen" to produce beneficial results in the changing environment. Is a mutation (in an exon) more likely to produce a beneficial result, or more likely to endanger the organism? The probability of random mutations and random environmental changes working in tandem over a couple billion years without those mutations compromising everything makes ID seem to have a point.

So evolution isn't random, but aside from natural selection, what else isn't random in what drives evolution? I haven't understood that yet.

[PatKelley]

Okay, well- how to explain this? You see, you have two copies of every genome, except for one if you are male. X chromosome. Some are dominant, some are recessive. Deleterious mutations (mutations that cause death from inception) often do not make it far into the stage of being an embryo, so the first wave of mutation-culling occurs before birth. Those that have mutations that prevent them from surviving outside the womb are next. So we already have covered deleterious mutations that prevent growth and birth. Any remaining that affect survival directly (ability to eat, ability to see, and so on) often are next, as the infant will either fail to get food or fail to escape threats.

So far, not much good here, but plenty of mutation and plenty of natural selection. What remain are recessive traits that do not show up at all in a heterozygous individual, or are partial recessives, like sickle-cell anemia. Usually one or the other gene is expressed and that is that; in partial recessives the recessive gene is expressed rather than not at all, but at a rate only up to half of the whole rate of gene expression.

Sickle-cell anemia is a good candidate for study, because as a partial recessive it confers some resistance to malaria and its effects. Without a sickle-cell gene, one is fully vulnerable to malaria. With homozygous sickle cell recessives, the individual has a short life expectancy without intervention. Sickle cells are less efficient at oxygen and carbon-dioxide exchange, and would normally be counted deleterious and taken out of the population more often than others. However, because of the advantage in the environment of malarial infection, heterozygous individuals have an advantage which supercedes the deleterious effects.

The mutation was random, and was not good in areas without malaria. In areas with malaria, it was a positive selection trait; but since a fully double-recessive doesn't survive much better than a homozygous dominant, the heterozygous individuals fared better; as a result, the recessive gene in this population will not supplant the dominant, because of the better survival of heterozygous individuals over homozygous.

[Roboramma]

I was looking for more of an explaination of how those gases appeared. You say the gases that formed our system were laid out randomly, when you say "laid out randomly" you mean created randomly? If so, then how can matter be randomly created? If the gasses weren't created then where'd they come from? Is the whole purpose of evolution to say humans came from apes, apes came from whatever, whatever came from etc., etc. came from gasses- because it's easier to believe that gasses came from nothing rather to say that humans or apes came from nothing? What difference does it make, it is still matter all the same.
I wasn't talking about the big bang or the origin of those gases that you're refering to.
In fact, you've surprised me by this line of argument. The gravity thing was an analogy, not an argument in itself. I made the assumption that you accepted that the solar system formed from gases that initially were much more spread out and came together through the force of gravity.
The point was this - it doesn't matter if the gases were arrayed randomly (and it doesn't really matter if you accept that they were or not) the force of gravity will still cause them to coalese.

Are you suggesting that if they were arrayed randomly they wouldn't coalese? I don't really get what you're saying.

But anyway, this is all an aside. I was using gravity as an analogy. It isn't a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution by natural selection basically says, "Once you have some life, this is what happens".

And by the way, evolution is concerned with a whole lot more than human origins. That's just a tiny little twig on a very large tree. Just happens to be a twig with delusions of grandeur.

So, all that said, I'm happy to drop this analogy. It was just a way of helping you understand my argument about natural selection. Seems to have backfired. Would you mind looking through the rest of the post where I talked about foxes and explaining what's wrong with that?

[Roboramma]

Fine. Natural selection isn't random. We've established that.

However, what hasn't been adequately explained is the random mutations that "just happen" to produce beneficial results in the changing environment. Is a mutation (in an exon) more likely to produce a beneficial result, or more likely to endanger the organism? The probability of random mutations and random environmental changes working in tandem over a couple billion years without those mutations compromising everything makes ID seem to have a point.

So evolution isn't random, but aside from natural selection, what else isn't random in what drives evolution? I haven't understood that yet.
Let me put it very breifly.
Given that there are a number of negative mutations, how is it that none of them become fixed in the population?

Natural selection.

Given that there are a smaller number, but still some, positive mutations, how is it that they do become fixed in the population?

Natural selection.

Do you think either that negative mutations will become fixed in a population or that positive mutations will not?

[BJQ87]

I wasn't talking about the big bang or the origin of those gases that you're refering to.


I wasn't talking about mutation or gravity and the coalescion of the gasses. It seems we were arguing about two different concepts that were somewhat similar.

But anyway, this is all an aside. I was using gravity as an analogy. It isn't a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution by natural selection basically says, "Once you have some life, this is what happens".

And by the way, evolution is concerned with a whole lot more than human origins. That's just a tiny little twig on a very large tree. Just happens to be a twig with delusions of grandeur.


I was suggesting the idea that another theory, being God, says that life was all created as is without evolutionary mutation. If you say "Once you have life this is what happens." that does not mean that you get off so easily and don't have to worry about where that life came from and how that coincides with your theory. If you consider the theory of evolution- It seems to be that it doesn't make sense at all in relation to how life began, being that, as i said before, it seems the whole purpose of evolution is to say humans came from apes, apes came from whatever, whatever came from etc., etc. came from gasses- because it's easier to believe that gasses came from nothing rather to say that humans or apes came from nothing. But the problem I have with that is that you find it easier to conclude that life came about "just because", or because it was necessary, just because all that exists is the assumed basic requirements that could possibly lead to evolution. As I similarly stated before "because it's easier to believe that gasses came from nothing rather to say that humans or apes came from nothing? What difference does it make, it is still matter all the same."

How did natural selection come to be? It is necessary for existence based upon the theory of evolution yes, but that is not a reason...I want to know what made it necessary.

[BJQ87]

And the whole human origins thing was in response to shadownexius's post btw.

[Roboramma]

It seems to be that it doesn't make sense at all in relation to how life began, being that, as i said before, it seems the whole purpose of evolution is to say humans came from apes, apes came from whatever, whatever came from etc., etc. came from gasses- because it's easier to believe that gasses came from nothing rather to say that humans or apes came from nothing. But the problem I have with that is that you find it easier to conclude that life came about "just because", or because it was necessary, just because all that exists is the assumed basic requirements that could possibly lead to evolution. As I similarly stated before "because it's easier to believe that gasses came from nothing rather to say that humans or apes came from nothing? What difference does it make, it is still matter all the same."

As I said it's about a lot more than human origins. Humans came from apes (by the way, we are apes...) came from etc. doesn't tell us any thing about birds for instance.
But the theory of evolution is concerned with birds. With all life on the planet earth in fact.

There was microbial life here three billion years ago. That's a fact. Given that what do we expect to happen?

Or how about this. All life on the planet earth is related through common decent. How do we know this? There are a large number of converging lines of evidence. I'm no expert on this, just an interested layman. But I'll do my best to offer some of those. I hope those more knowledgable will correct all of the horendous mistakes that will invariably pop up.

Fossil evidence is far from the strongest of these. There are reasons for that. Very few animals fossilize. Of those that do most are destroyed by errosion and whatnot before we get a chance to dig them up.
But those fossils that we do see tell an interesting story. For instance, there were no mammals 300 mya. Nor birds. There were reptiles, however. There were fish. This is interesting.
We see changes in the life on the planet earth that move through time. We have a very detailed record of our homonid ancestors for instance.

Biogeographical evidence (I'm not sure if that's the correct term, I may have just made it up). Organisms living near to each other tend to be more closely related than those living at distant parts of the globe. For instance, Austrailia is full of marsupials, whereas there are none in europe or asia. Why were there no rabbits in Austrailia before humans brought them there? They do very well in that habitat.
In fact, often organisms on the same continent but in diverse environments resemble each other more than animals on different continents but the same enivironment.
Flightless island birds have a lot in common with sea birds that might have been blown off course and settled those islands. If they were independantly created, why should this be so?

I'm stating the above poorly but I think you get it. Just in case, here's what Darwin had to say about it in the beginning of the chapter titled "Geographical Distribution" in The Origin of Species:
In concidering the distribution of organic beings over the face of the globe, the first great fact which strikes us is that neither the similarity nor the dissimilarity of the inhabitants of various regions can be accounted for by the climatal and other physical conditions. Of late, almost every author who has studied the subject has come to this conclusion. The case of America alone would almost suffice to prove its truth: for if we exclud ethe northern parts wher teh circumplar land is almost continuos, all authors agree that one of the most fundamental divisions in geographical distibution is that between the New and Old Worlds; yet if we travel over the vast American continent, from the central parts of the United States to its extreme southern point, we meet with the most diversified conditions; the most humid districts, arid deserts, lofty mountains, grassy plains, forests, marshes, lakes, and great rivers, under almost every temperature. There is hardly a climate or condition in the Old World which cannot be paralleled in the New...
If you have access to it read the entire chapter. It'll make you think at the very least.

As an addition to the above, look at it this way. There are some traits that are common to whole classes of organisms, but it's hard to understand why.
For instance, the mammalian ear. Why is it that bats and cows and monkeys and kangaroos all have similar ears, and all have fur, but no reptiles have that ear structure?
It goes beyond that - look at it like this: all animals with fur lactate. All animals that lactate have that similar ear structure. All animals with that ear structure are warm blooded (note, it is not true that all animals that are warm blooded have fur, this is explained by convergent evolution)
Common descent explains this well - these were features that the common ancestor to all those organisms had and that have thus been retained.

DNA analysis supports the theory. I don't know that much about this, you'll have to ask an expert for more. But from what I see, the old classification system is held up by DNA analysis. You might say to the above - well, maybe it's just chance that all animals with fur lactate. Okay. But those animals are also shown to be more closely related genetically to each other than to any animal that doesn't have fur.

Now for a much stronger genetic argument. Again, I don't know that much about this. Still, I'll do my best.
Junk DNA is DNA that has no phenotypic effects. Thus it can't be selected for. Over time more mutations build up, the harmful ones are weeded out, the beneficial ones are maintained, but the neutral ones (by far the most common) just stay there.
Now look at what evolution predicts.

Say there are two species. A, and B.
These two species are closely related. Maybe to the point that it's hard to tell if they are really separate species. Their junk DNA is almost identical at this point.
Over time the populations diverge. And over time more and more neutral mutations find their way into these populations. Their junk DNA is becoming different.

Two million years go by. Species B exists over a large range, but climactic change cuts this range into two separate populations. More time goes by and these two populations diverge enough that they can be said to be different species.
Now we have three species A, Ba, and Bb
Ba and Bb have almost identical junk DNA, but A's junk DNA is quite different from them at this point.
More time passes. The junk DNA in all three species continues to gradually change, one mutation at a time. Ba and Bb build up a few differences. A builds up even more differences from the other two.

We come along. We take a look at these three species. (call them humans chimps and bonobos if you want, they could be three species butterflies, though). We sequence their DNA. We find that the two species that are most alike physiologically also share the most similarity in their junk DNA.
Why is that?
Evolution gives a reason, but can you suggest another?

Anyway, I'm no expert. I've probably made quite a few errors in the above. But I think you see the point.

Now some of that supported natural selection. But mostly what it tells us about is common decent. I'd have to write another post giving you evidence of natural selection.
Nevertheless. Given that common decent occured, we look for a mechanism. Natural selection is a very powerful mechanism. It's not the only one. But it is probably the most important. And it's very well supported. For instance (and this is just a random example) it explains very well the sex ratio in ants.

How did natural selection come to be? It is necessary for existence based upon the theory of evolution yes, but that is not a reason...I want to know what made it necessary.
As Paul C. Aanagnostopoulos is fond of pointing out on this board, natural selection is a logical necessity. Once you've got certain ingrediants. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will produce life exactly as we see it (for that we need evidence, which we have), but it does mean that it's not something that we should be surprised to see happening, as you seem to be suggesting. Anyway here's the quote Paul is always throwing out there (I like it):

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

[Dancing David]

Fine. Natural selection isn't random. We've established that.

However, what hasn't been adequately explained is the random mutations that "just happen" to produce beneficial results in the changing environment. Is a mutation (in an exon) more likely to produce a beneficial result, or more likely to endanger the organism? The probability of random mutations and random environmental changes working in tandem over a couple billion years without those mutations compromising everything makes ID seem to have a point.

So evolution isn't random, but aside from natural selection, what else isn't random in what drives evolution? I haven't understood that yet.


Uh, you have set up a dualistic system there!

The majority of mutations have little to no effect, most mutations are likely to have an effect that is un-noticed in the reproduction game. Some of the 'dangerous ones' require a host of other events to actualy harm reproduction and so they don't effect delection either.

What drives evolution is reproduction.

[Dancing David]

How did natural selection come to be? It is necessary for existence based upon the theory of evolution yes, but that is not a reason...I want to know what made it necessary.

You have an assumption of necessity, evolution is a theory to explain observation.

The idea is that organisms that reproduce are more likely to create other organisms that reproduce, organisms that don't reproduce don't create other organisms that reproduce.

The question you are asking falls into the area of ontology and can't be answered by science.

[Beerina]

Fine. Natural selection isn't random. We've established that.

However, what hasn't been adequately explained is the random mutations that "just happen" to produce beneficial results in the changing environment. Is a mutation (in an exon) more likely to produce a beneficial result, or more likely to endanger the organism? The probability of random mutations and random environmental changes working in tandem over a couple billion years without those mutations compromising everything makes ID seem to have a point.

So evolution isn't random, but aside from natural selection, what else isn't random in what drives evolution? I haven't understood that yet.

Yes, truly random mutations are far more likely than not to produce growth harmful to the organism, if not prevent it from development outright.

But with sexual reproduction (which itself evolved from pure random mutation) we have a whole new ballgame -- a way for much larger scale, and safe, random deviations to occur, and thus generation after generation the species will much more rapidly explore the gradient descent space of "what's better". In other words, this accelerates the evolution a thousand fold, if not a lot more.

[cyborg]

How did natural selection come to be? It is necessary for existence based upon the theory of evolution yes, but that is not a reason...I want to know what made it necessary.

In any logical system given a certain set of axioms certain statements will always either be true or not. These outcomes will be consistent within the framework of the axioms.

Now if you consider the operation of nature as a mathmatical (logic) system then there are also going to be certain things that are also always going to be true or false. There are certain consequences as to the nature of physics that naturally arise from the rules you put in place. Such things are pretty easy to demonstrate from simple mathmatical models - cellular automata for example.

Natural selection is also a consequence that arises in a similar way. Natural selection is an emergent property.