Emilio Primo Posted August 7, 2010 Author Posted August 7, 2010 No, they are not. Random would mean there is no reason the volcanic eruption occurs at a particular time and place. However, this is not the case. They are the result of consistent natural laws, and are predictable. Let's look at the definition of the word random... 1.Random: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers. Just because we know how something occurs or happens does not mean it's NOT random. So: A - Address the questions asked of you: 1) Explain what you mean by "aided eye." 2) Explain why that is the limit of "observation." 3) Explain why things that fall outside that limit are not science, in your opinion. OR B - Demonstrate maturity: Concede that your initial proposition was incorrect. My position was incorrect? YOU have never addressed my initial position, only ONE poster has How about you answer my initial questions and we will proceed from there, or are you content with hiding the fact your stance is weak by the use of misdirection. Ok then. I defined aided as anything which allows one to observe, study, perceive, or predict a phenomena. By my definition of aided. I can observe evolution, dark matter, and a black hole. Therefore since I can observe them your argument that they cannot be science is now bunk. OK, did life come about by chance?
DJBruce Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 My position was incorrect? YOU have never addressed my initial position, only ONE poster has How about you answer my initial questions and we will proceed from there, or are you content with hiding the fact your stance is weak by the use of misdirection. Well this is a complete lie. Numerous members have addressed your point. Numerous post have been made giving you evidence why your position is wrong. Numerous examples and explanations have been given to you to show you how you are wrong. So don't say people haven't addressed your point. If anything you have failed to respond to with any sort of valid evidence or reasoning to those challenges to your beliefs. So why don't you go back and address ALL of the evidence that has been shown your ideas to be wrong. Again saying someone's argument is weak does not make it so, however, much you might wish it does it doesn't. Your assertion of such is just an ad hom, which in the theatre of a scientific debate proves nothing. OK, did life come about by chance? Current evidence suggests that life came about by the chance interaction of elements and compounds. Although I have no idea what this has to do with my definition of aided, and am guessing it is simply a non-sequitor.
Emilio Primo Posted August 7, 2010 Author Posted August 7, 2010 Well this is a complete lie. Numerous members have addressed your point. Numerous post have been made giving you evidence why your position is wrong. Numerous examples and explanations have been given to you to show you how you are wrong. So don't say people haven't addressed your point. If anything you have failed to respond to with any sort of valid evidence or reasoning to those challenges to your beliefs. So why don't you go back and address ALL of the evidence that has been shown your ideas to be wrong. Again saying someone's argument is weak does not make it so, however, much you might wish it does it doesn't. Your assertion of such is just an ad hom, which in the theatre of a scientific debate proves nothing. Who addressed my points and what was their retort. Repost them. Current evidence suggests that life came about by the chance interaction of elements and compounds. Although I have no idea what this has to do with my definition of aided, and am guessing it is simply a non-sequitor. SO how can this be chance if we know how this occurred? -1
DJBruce Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 Who addressed my points and what was their retort. Repost them. There is no need for me to repost them. The are all contained in this thread already. Simply go back and read the things people posted. You will find almost everyone's posts address your points and claims.
swansont Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 Make it a rock, or an apple, then. It falls or rolls. Where is the intent? "Aided" is not too vague, you are grasping for straws now, please stop. Pot. Kettle. Black. Stop evading and answer the question. Let's look at the definition of the word random... 1.Random: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers. Just because we know how something occurs or happens does not mean it's NOT random. The dictionary is not a technical reference. The way random is being used is: all outcomes are equally probably. Life did not come about via purely random occurrences. 1
Ringer Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 (edited) I think you confuse the word random and arbitrary. Emilio not swansont btw Edited August 8, 2010 by Ringer
Moontanman Posted August 9, 2010 Posted August 9, 2010 But we have yet to observe the evolution of a species into a new and different species. New species of Sting Ray Evolving! Until recently there were no North American freshwater sting rays but in the St Johns river in Florida and several freshwater lakes and streams in the region a new species of sting ray is evolving. The Atlantic stingray (Dasyatis sabina) has populations that are now living permanently in freshwater, these new freshwater stingrays are both geographically isolated and reproductively isolated. This stingray normally inhabits marine environments and occasionally traveling into brackish and freshwater environments but always returning to the marine environment. This new population is land locked and lives in freshwater their entire lives, even reproducing in freshwater which the original species does not normally do. This is very good example of an animal population splitting up into two different species...
Emilio Primo Posted August 17, 2010 Author Posted August 17, 2010 I think you confuse the word random and arbitrary. Emilio not swansont btw You think wrong... New species of Sting Ray Evolving! Until recently there were no North American freshwater sting rays but in the St Johns river in Florida and several freshwater lakes and streams in the region a new species of sting ray is evolving. The Atlantic stingray (Dasyatis sabina) has populations that are now living permanently in freshwater, these new freshwater stingrays are both geographically isolated and reproductively isolated. This stingray normally inhabits marine environments and occasionally traveling into brackish and freshwater environments but always returning to the marine environment. This new population is land locked and lives in freshwater their entire lives, even reproducing in freshwater which the original species does not normally do. This is very good example of an animal population splitting up into two different species... How does this answer my question? Did this Sting ray come from anything OTHER than another species of sting ray? This is exactly the point I am making. It was a Sting Ray prior, and STILL it remains a Sting Ray, nothing more. Make it a rock, or an apple, then. It falls or rolls. Where is the intent? If an apple falls from a tree, it's gravity. But you have to explain how how this rock/apple fell, what it feel from? Pot. Kettle. Black. How so Stop evading and answer the question. Sorry? The dictionary is not a technical reference.The way random is being used is: all outcomes are equally probably. Life did not come about via purely random occurrences. So what was not random about the occurrences that caused life to come about?
swansont Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 If an apple falls from a tree, it's gravity. But you have to explain how how this rock/apple fell, what it feel from? Why do I have to explain it? This is your contention, not mine. The trajectory of a rock from a rockslide or an apple falling from a tree is not random. You contend it therefore has intent. I'm asking you to show where the intent is. I'm also asking you to rigorously define "intent" because your use of it is way too vague to be useful and only serves to cause confusion (though since the use is not random, can I assume that it is intentional?) So what was not random about the occurrences that caused life to come about? The outcomes of chemistry are not random. A collection of H2 and O2 and a spark will give you water, and any leftover molecules will be mostly H2 or O2. You will not get H6O6, or H2O5, for example.
Emilio Primo Posted August 17, 2010 Author Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) Why do I have to explain it? This is your contention, not mine. The trajectory of a rock from a rockslide or an apple falling from a tree is not random. You contend it therefore has intent. I'm asking you to show where the intent is. I'm also asking you to rigorously define "intent" because your use of it is way too vague to be useful and only serves to cause confusion (though since the use is not random, can I assume that it is intentional?) I know it's been sometime, but the contention was definitively yours. But anyway what makes these occurrences(apple falling from a tree or or a rock slide) NOT random? Also, I gave you the defined version of the word INTENT, how much more vigorous could it be? The outcomes of chemistry are not random. A collection of H2 and O2 and a spark will give you water, and any leftover molecules will be mostly H2 or O2. You will not get H6O6, or H2O5, for example. IS LIFE from non life random? And if you say it is not please explain how so... Edited August 17, 2010 by Emilio Primo
Ringer Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) How does this answer my question? Did this Sting ray come from anything OTHER than another species of sting ray? This is exactly the point I am making. It was a Sting Ray prior, and STILL it remains a Sting Ray, nothing more. You show a severe misunderstanding of evolution my friend I know it's been sometime, but the contention was definitively yours. But anyway what makes these occurrences(apple falling from a tree or or a rock slide) NOT random? The occurrences are not random because there the apple and the rock slide have observable causes, trajectories, etc. Also, I said you confuse random and arbitrary because random is something with no purpose or direction or all outcomes being equal, while arbitrary something seemingly random with still having a purpose. Edited August 17, 2010 by Ringer
Emilio Primo Posted August 17, 2010 Author Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) [/size] You show a severe misunderstanding of evolution my friend Sorry but my understanding of evolution is clear. You need to back read this thread. I have been specifically describing MACRO evolution since this threads beginning. The occurrences are not random because there the apple and the rock slide have observable causes, trajectories, etc. How does that make it NOT random? If you could observe the so called beginning of life from non life, and the formation of it's chemicals, would that make it not random? Also, I said you confuse random and arbitrary because random is something with no purpose or direction or all outcomes being equal, while arbitrary something seemingly random with still having a purpose. I understand what random is very well, thank you. Edited August 17, 2010 by Emilio Primo
Ringer Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Sorry but my understanding of evolution is clear. You need to back read this thread. I have been specifically describing MACRO evolution since this threads beginning. Macro evolution is thought to be caused by compounded micro evolution. My point still stands How does that make it NOT random? If you could observe the so called beginning of life from non life, and the formation of it's chemicals, would that make it not random? formation of chemicals is non-random, so any chemicals that form will not be random. Rocks and apples don't go up, that alone makes it non-random. I understand what random is very well, thank you. You contradict yourself quite well sir.
swansont Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 I know it's been sometime, but the contention was definitively yours. But anyway what makes these occurrences(apple falling from a tree or or a rock slide) NOT random? Also, I gave you the defined version of the word INTENT, how much more vigorous could it be? It's mine? OK, then I retract it. The dichotomy of random vs intent is a false one. Curious thing, though, since I thought you were the one advancing that notion. You gave a dictionary definition of the word, not a scientific one. I can't use it to determine intent, because when I gave you an example without intent, you said there was still intent there. You can't apply it circularly, i.e. that intent implies nonrandom and therefore nonrandom confirms intent. You need an independent way to confirm intent. IS LIFE from non life random? And if you say it is not please explain how so... No, there is no indiction that it is random; all outcomes are not equally probable. There are deterministic elements in chemistry.
Moontanman Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 How does this answer my question? Did this Sting ray come from anything OTHER than another species of sting ray? This is exactly the point I am making. It was a Sting Ray prior, and STILL it remains a Sting Ray, nothing more. If you really think that a sting ray is a sting ray then you have a profound lack of understanding of what a species is. How can you even pretend to understand what life is much less evolution? You come to a discussion making claims you have no clue about, asking questions you do not want an answer to, and only looking to disrupt what you cannot even pretend to understand.... total failure....
Emilio Primo Posted August 19, 2010 Author Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) It's mine? OK, then I retract it. The dichotomy of random vs intent is a false one. Curious thing, though, since I thought you were the one advancing that notion. No, you were the coming up with ALL these examples of what is random and what is also NOT random, but also has no conscience intent behind it. So I asked you to please further explain these examples, but then you claim these examples was my idea? HUH? You gave a dictionary definition of the word, not a scientific one. I can't use it to determine intent, because when I gave you an example without intent, you said there was still intent there. You can't apply it circularly, i.e. that intent implies nonrandom and therefore nonrandom confirms intent. You need an independent way to confirm intent. Sorry, but this is a load of garbage. The definition I gave you gives you exactly the meaning of the word I am striving for.. YOU gave NO example that fits your implications of what is random and non random but without intent. I asked you for specifics of your examples, my reasoning was never circular, your examples were inadequate. No, there is no indiction that it is random; all outcomes are not equally probable. There are deterministic elements in chemistry. So if it was not random, then what was it, and how so? Macro evolution is thought to be caused by compounded micro evolution. My point still formation of chemicals is non-random, so any chemicals that form will not be random. Rocks and apples don't go up, that alone makes it non-random. What are you talking about? Apples and rocks don't go up so that makes it non random? What!? How does your point stand, please explain, rather than just saying so.... You contradict yourself quite well sir. You would be taken more seriously if you actually would explain yourself rather than keep making comment in the fashion of "I am right and you are wrong." Edited August 19, 2010 by Emilio Primo
Ringer Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) He already said it is deterministic. It's that way because chemistry follows certain laws that allows chemicals to be formed. My point stands because you don't realize that evolutions doesn't go *poof* new animal. Macro-evolution is compounded micro-evolution. My point of you misunderstanding evolution stands. Edited August 19, 2010 by Ringer
Emilio Primo Posted August 19, 2010 Author Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) If you really think that a sting ray is a sting ray then you have a profound lack of understanding of what a species is. How can you even pretend to understand what life is much less evolution? OK, let's keep the discussion clear.... What I specifically said was... This species of Sting Ray that you claimed "evolved" did it evolve into something more than a Sting Ray OR at the end of the day was it STILL a STING RAY.... So was it or was it not? You come to a discussion making claims you have no clue about, asking questions you do not want an answer to, and only looking to disrupt what you cannot even pretend to understand.... total failure.... Sorry but if you fail to back up your claim, and make false claims in under to keep backing up other false claims, then the failure is on you sir, not me. You have yet to comment on anything I stated in the OP, but you claim I do not understand? Please! talk about disruption.... He already said it is deterministic. It's that way because chemistry follows certain laws that allows chemicals to be formed. This is called physics... My point stands because you don't realize that evolutions doesn't go *poof* new animal. Macro-evolution is compounded micro-evolution. My point of you misunderstanding evolution stands. Read the thread so you can stop making assuming comments about my ideas of evolution, thanks. Or do not bother commenting. Edited August 19, 2010 by Emilio Primo -1
Moontanman Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) OK, let's keep the discussion clear.... What I specifically said was... This species of Sting Ray that you claimed "evolved" did it evolve into something more than a Sting Ray OR at the end of the day was it STILL a STING RAY.... So was it or was it not? There are many different species of stingray, most are no more closely related than a human is to a cow, Dasyatis sabina is a distinct species of stingray in the genus Dasyatis, the freshwater version is not yet a distinct species but it is moving in that direction since the main population cannot live out their entire lives in freshwater, there are many genus of stingray, some so far removed they have no more in common with each other than a human has with a platypus, your assertion that a stingray is a stingray shows your total ignorance of the subject of species, speciation, evolution and what it means.... Sorry but if you fail to back up your claim, and make false claims in under to keep backing up other false claims, then the failure is on you sir, not me. You have yet to comment on anything I stated in the OP, but you claim I do not understand? Please! Please point out any false claims i have made and I will either retract them or show you they are correct, don't just make claims of my lack of veracity.... Emilio, tell me what Dasyatis sabina would have to become for you to consider it new species? I'd really like to know your thoughts on this.... Edited August 19, 2010 by Moontanman
Ringer Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 I reread this entire thread, every one of your points have been proven incorrect over and over again, you obviously refuse to understand what anyone else is trying to show you. You again and again tell us how science is when you obviously have no experience working in these areas of science. I was always told as a child, "never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat the hell out of you with experience." Not that I'm saying you are actually an idiot, but it's obvious that no amount of evidence will make you change your mind and it's an exercise in futility to try. I would like to understand how you believe evolution works, you say you understand it very well but I didn't read a single straight answer to anyone's questions about what you are trying to argue. If you could actually fully answer: 1.) exactly what you mean when you say random 2.) how does evolution work 3.) why you think everyone's links aren't enough evidence when you provide none of your own that alone would make this discussion much more meaningful. It's difficult to have any type of discussion when people from different sides are using different meanings of the same words. 1
swansont Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 No, you were the coming up with ALL these examples of what is random and what is also NOT random, but also has no conscience intent behind it. So I asked you to please further explain these examples, but then you claim these examples was my idea? HUH? I never brought up intent That was purely your concoction. It was you who has claimed that there was somehow intent in the trajectory of a rock or apple falling: If an apple falls from a tree, it's gravity. But you have to explain how how this rock/apple fell, what it feel from? Why do I have to explain where a rock came from, in order to determine intent? How do I do this? How will the trajectory of an intentionally thrown object differ from that which lacks intent? This is why a precise scientific definition of intent is required. Sorry, but this is a load of garbage. The definition I gave you gives you exactly the meaning of the word I am striving for.. YOU gave NO example that fits your implications of what is random and non random but without intent. I asked you for specifics of your examples, my reasoning was never circular, your examples were inadequate. I can't give you an adequate example until you give me an adequate definition. The definition you gave is: Intent: something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds. Which means that if I do something accidentally, there is no intent. According to your hypothesis, if I drop a rock accidentally, it will fall in a random way. If I drop it on purpose, it will somehow fall in some other way. So if it was not random, then what was it, and how so? It's a mixture of probabilistic and deterministic processes.
Emilio Primo Posted August 19, 2010 Author Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) There are many different species of stingray, most are no more closely related than a human is to a cow, Dasyatis sabina is a distinct species of stingray in the genus Dasyatis, the freshwater version is not yet a distinct species but it is moving in that direction since the main population cannot live out their entire lives in freshwater, there are many genus of stingray, some so far removed they have no more in common with each other than a human has with a platypus, your assertion that a stingray is a stingray shows your total ignorance of the subject of species, speciation, evolution and what it means.... Sorry, but this was NOT my assertion, actually you didn't even answer my question with this example. Adapting, or evolving to live in fresh water is not the MACRO evolution I have been referring to since I started this thread, which I have explained numerous times even giving an example. You seem to fail to understand the simple question I am asking since you have yet to provide anything relevant or address the question directly. You provided an example of a Sting Ray separating and adapting to a new environment, which is apart of how evolutionary theory is suppose to work. NOW, provide me an example of a separation of species, of this species evolving into a new and different species, one it was NOT prior. NOT an adaption of environment but a change from species to new and separate species. Much like the example I provided earlier... What I am beginning to learn from this thread is how to make use of misdirection. Please point out any false claims i have made and I will either retract them or show you they are correct, don't just make claims of my lack of veracity.... See above... Emilio, tell me what Dasyatis sabina would have to become for you to consider it new species? I'd really like to know your thoughts on this.... Why don't you just answer the question I have asked since this threads beginning, and have asked again above.... I never brought up intent That was purely your concoction. It was you who has claimed that there was somehow intent in the trajectory of a rock or apple falling: Sorry, I never claimed this. You seem to be moving of course from the ORIGINAL discussion. Figures. Why do I have to explain where a rock came from, in order to determine intent? How do I do this? How will the trajectory of an intentionally thrown object differ from that which lacks intent? This is why a precise scientific definition of intent is required. That's NOT the question I asked, again you are moving the argument from which it never came. So I'll asked again... What caused the rock to fall, in the first place? I can't give you an adequate example until you give me an adequate definition. The definition you gave is: Intent: something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds. Which means that if I do something accidentally, there is no intent. According to your hypothesis, if I drop a rock accidentally, it will fall in a random way. If I drop it on purpose, it will somehow fall in some other way. First of all what you state above was never my argument. Secondly, Why can't you provided an example based on the definition of the word intent? How about you provide the so called scientific definition for this word, since the standard defintion falls short. So what is the scientific definition for intent? It's a mixture of probabilistic and deterministic processes. I hope you do not think you just explained why life coming about by chance was not random or intended? I reread this entire thread, every one of your points have been proven incorrect over and over again, you obviously refuse to understand what anyone else is trying to show you. You again and again tell us how science is when you obviously have no experience working in these areas of science. I was always told as a child, "never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat the hell out of you with experience." Not that I'm saying you are actually an idiot, but it's obvious that no amount of evidence will make you change your mind and it's an exercise in futility to try. I would like to understand how you believe evolution works, you say you understand it very well but I didn't read a single straight answer to anyone's questions about what you are trying to argue. If you could actually fully answer: 1.) exactly what you mean when you say random 2.) how does evolution work 3.) why you think everyone's links aren't enough evidence when you provide none of your own that alone would make this discussion much more meaningful. It's difficult to have any type of discussion when people from different sides are using different meanings of the same words. Seems you still have not read the thread... Edited August 19, 2010 by Emilio Primo -1
Moontanman Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) How many examples do you need? Species? Genera? Kingdoms? I know of at least one new species of fish that has been seen to emerge but it would take some effort on my part to provide you with evidence that would almost certainly discount so i will provide this, so far all you have done is run you fingers across the key board. Show us something to back up your claims.... now either put up or shut up. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html Edited August 19, 2010 by Moontanman
Emilio Primo Posted August 19, 2010 Author Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) How many examples do you need? Species? Genera? Kingdoms? I know of at least one new species of fish that has been seen to emerge but it would take some effort on my part to provide you with evidence that would almost certainly discount so i will provide this, so far all you have done is run you fingers across the key board. Show us something to back up your claims.... now either put up or shut up. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html Nope, just one example of this: There is a herds of elephants. AT some point in time these elephants branch off into two different directions and become isolated from each other, some go this way and some go that way. Days turn into months, months turn into years, years turn into tens of years, tens into hundreds, generations past for these elephants. Then one day a momma elephant has a baby, but behold, this baby is not like the rest, it's quite different, it's not like the rest of the elephants at all, it's not remarkable different than the other elephants, but one thing is for sure it's certainly NOT an elephant, but it's lineage is traced through the elephant species, though it is now a new and different species, and this new species in turn then begins the start of this new and different species. THIS, is how scientist predict evolution occurred in nature... THIS is how evolution is said to have occurred in nature, THIS is how we "supposedly" have the diversity in life on the planet today... NOW show me an example of THIS, or follow you own advice. Edited August 19, 2010 by Emilio Primo -3
Sisyphus Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 That is not how evolution is said to have occurred in nature, as has already been explained a number of times. If that's what you're demanding, then you're not going to get it, because it doesn't exist and nobody is saying it does.
Recommended Posts