The Difference between Micro and Macro Evolution

Loudmouth · May 14, 2014

Dizredux said:
I am really interested in how Just would factor in God in trying to make predictions about when and where a volcano will erupt.

Seemingly, according to Just, all those atheist Geologists are doing it all wrong because they do not cite God in their reports. I am really wondering how Just would suggest Geology to be done to make it not atheistic.

Dizredux

From what I have seen, justlookinla will spend the next three pages trying to change the subjecto so he doesn't have to answer that question.

Oncedeceived · May 14, 2014

Dizredux said:
The picture was, unless I am mistaken, of volcano forming an island so yes, volcanism would be very relevant to his question and I addressed the location issue on those terms and demonstrated that the location was not random.

Dizredux

Ah so you did. My mistake. I should have read it better.

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Let's just pull back the curtain and understand the conversation for what it is.

The conversation is what the creationist/Darwinist conversation has been about for quite a while now, i.e., is the complexity and variety of life, including humanity, a creation of God or is the complexity and variety of life, including humanity, a big cosmic accident.

Creationists are demanding that science say that God was involved in evolution despite not having any evidence to support such a view.

Darwinist are claiming that their view is a scientific view and that all of the complexity and variety of life, including humanity, is supported by the scientific method. It's not.

Scientists won't do it. The response from creationists? Accuse scientists of being atheists and inserting their beliefs into science.

Darwinism is a philosophical belief system into which some scientists insert their beliefs. Other scientists challenge the Darwinist philosophical belief system.

This creationist view of the world is rather pathetic.

The Darwinist view of creation, including humanity, is inherently atheistic. Humanity, according to the Darwinists, is just another creation of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism. In other words boys and girls, you're of no more value than a worm.

It is no different than the child holding their breath until they get what they want. Sometimes, the best course of action is to wait for the child to pass out.

The atheistic Darwinist view is in direct opposition that humanity is a creation of God. This atheistic opposition has many times a religious fervor to it, a demand that one must follow Darwinism or you're embracing the ignorance of a 'magic man in the sky' view of creation. The choice is actually simple. Embrace the idea that you're a creation of God or don't. Embrace the idea that you're a cosmic accident embracing atheistic Darwinism or don't.

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

Dizredux said:
Unplanned unless you want to say that God planned for to happen. If it is your religious faith that this is true, I would have no problems with as it is my view also. Other than that, there is no known agent that plans or decides where or when volcanoes will erupt.

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

If they are random, the are made, done, happening, or chosen WITH method or conscious decision.

If there is a consciousness then there is a 'agent'.

Random, Volcanoes are non random in that they usually occur along tectonic plate lines and this is very predictable and well observed phenomena. Look at any map of active volcanoes and you can see what I mean.

The fact that they occur along tectonic plate lines has nothing to do with their randomness in location within those areas, the severity of the volcano, the timing of the volcano and the impact on the weather.

So volcano islands are not random as you see random. They are not likely to happen just anywhere but usually in very specific areas.

Dizredux

If they are non-random, we need to identify the 'agent' involved in the non-randomness. Otherwise they are random.

biggles53 · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
The conversation is what the creationist/Darwinist conversation has been about for quite a while now, i.e., is the complexity and variety of life, including humanity, a creation of God or is the complexity and variety of life, including humanity, a big cosmic accident.

Darwinist are claiming that their view is a scientific view and that all of the complexity and variety of life, including humanity, is supported by the scientific method. It's not.

Darwinism is a philosophical belief system into which some scientists insert their beliefs. Other scientists challenge the Darwinist philosophical belief system.

The Darwinist view of creation, including humanity, is inherently atheistic. Humanity, according to the Darwinists, is just another creation of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism. In other words boys and girls, you're of no more value than a worm.

The atheistic Darwinist view is in direct opposition that humanity is a creation of God. This atheistic opposition has many times a religious fervor to it, a demand that one must follow Darwinism or you're embracing the ignorance of a 'magic man in the sky' view of creation. The choice is actually simple. Embrace the idea that you're a creation of God or don't. Embrace the idea that you're a cosmic accident embracing atheistic Darwinism or don't.

Why do you feel the need to lie for your beliefs...? Are they so lacking in substance that you feel driven to simply make up stories in order to feel better...?

The simple fact is that there is, literally, tons and tons of evidence to support the theory that life on this planet has varied as a result of the evolutionary process. In fact, it is arguably THE most strongly supported theory in all of science....if you want to have a crack at disproving a theory, you would be far more likely to be successful attacking gravitational theory or atomic theory...!

To continue to deny the existence of this evidence is to lie......doesn't your religion say something about that...?

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Are you saying that if we only use natural mechanisms to explain a volcanic eruption that we are using atheistic principles?

This portion of the thread is discussing if one of the factors of natural selection, the location of the land mass, is random or non-random.

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

Dizredux said:
I am really interested in how Just would factor in God in trying to make predictions about when and where a volcano will erupt.

Seemingly, according to Just, all those atheist Geologists are doing it all wrong because they do not cite God in their reports. I am really wondering how Just would suggest Geology to be done to make it not atheistic.

Dizredux

That's not the issue. The issue is concerning the position of land, of of the determinates of natural selection, is a random or non-random event.

The frequent claim that Darwinism isn't random (the 'random' part of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless) is being examined.

biggles53 · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
This portion of the thread is discussing if one of the factors of natural selection, the location of the land mass, is random or non-random.

It's non random of course....if you're talking specifically about a land mass that has volcanic activity, they are not randomly dispersed....they are found primarily along tectonic plate boundaries...

If you're talking more generally about the location of ANY land mass, again the pattern is non random....the various continents are positioned according the movements of tectonic plates....their movement can be predicted...

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

biggles53 said:
Why do you feel the need to lie for your beliefs...? Are they so lacking in substance that you feel driven to simply make up stories in order to feel better...?

I feel like I'm in an ole time gospel tent meeting.

The simple fact is that there is, literally, tons and tons of evidence to support the theory that life on this planet has varied as a result of the evolutionary process.

There is nothing, zero, nada, zip, to support the Darwinist theory that you're a creation of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism.

In fact, it is arguably THE most strongly supported theory in all of science....if you want to have a crack at disproving a theory, you would be far more likely to be successful attacking gravitational theory or atomic theory...!

Guesses and suppositions, maybe's and could have been's isn't the strongest of support for any view. That's called subjective reasoning.

To continue to deny the existence of this evidence is to lie......doesn't your religion say something about that...?

Oh yes, the Pharisaical religious fervor toward those who would dare disagree with their philosophy. I see it often in many religions, including atheism.

Kylie · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
Been away a day or so and trying to catch up.

Still examining the view that the "position of the land" isn't a random event. Would the following be a non-random position, or is the location of the island a random event?

Was the location (the position) planned or unplanned, random or non-random?

JL, it's irrelevant.

All that matters is that this is one example of how an aspect of the environment can apply a selective pressure to a population of animals, and thus the population will gradually evolve to become suited for that environment.

Kylie · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
That's not the issue. The issue is concerning the position of land, of of the determinates of natural selection, is a random or non-random event.

The frequent claim that Darwinism isn't random (the 'random' part of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless) is being examined.

And as I have told you COUNTLESS times now, the non-random part of evolution is that only certain traits are passed on and spread throughout a population. The traits that are passed on are not random.

EternalDragon · May 14, 2014

KTS said:
JL, it's irrelevant.

All that matters is that this is one example of how an aspect of the environment can apply a selective pressure to a population of animals, and thus the population will gradually evolve to become suited for that environment.

Are you saying that the environments remained the same over millions of years? If it takes a species population too long to adapt, they will die out.

OllieFranz · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
That's not the issue. The issue is concerning the position of land, of of the determinates of natural selection, is a random or non-random event.

The frequent claim that Darwinism isn't random (the 'random' part of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless) is being examined.

As I posted earlier, I am no longer certain that there is such a thing as a random event.

However, a complex event can incorporate random (if they exist) and non-random elements, and if the non-random elements predominate and the trend (if not necessarily the specifics) is predictable, the event is not random.

Some of the events that give rise to great variation within a species are unpredictable, but they do not drive evolution what drives evolution is selection. And selection is never random.

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

KTS said:
JL, it's irrelevant.

All that matters is that this is one example of how an aspect of the environment can apply a selective pressure to a population of animals, and thus the population will gradually evolve to become suited for that environment.

The aspect of the environment that we're examining is the 'position of land' view that someone brought up as an example of a non-random impetus for natural selection.

Is it random or non-random appearances of land which helps drive natural selection?

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

OllieFranz said:
As I posted earlier, I am no longer certain that there is such a thing as a random event.

By random, I mean.....

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

However, a complex event can incorporate random (if they exist) and non-random elements, and if the non-random elements predominate and the trend (if not necessarily the specifics) is predictable, the event is not random.

I'm simply trying to determine if one of the elements which impact natural selection, the position of the land, is random (per the definition above) or non-random. Non-random would suggest that the position of the land was "made, done, happening, or chosen WITH method or conscious decision".

Some of the events that give rise to great variation within a species are unpredictable, but they do not drive evolution what drives evolution is selection. And selection is never random.

The impetus behind the selection is random or non-random. In other words, the creation of humanity from a single common ancestor has natural selection as part of it's creation, according to some. Is the impetus for the natural selection, i.e, the environment (the position of land) from a random or non-random occurrence?

biggles53 · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
By random, I mean.....

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

I'm simply trying to determine if one of the elements which impact natural selection, the position of the land, is random (per the definition above) or non-random. Non-random would suggest that the position of the land was "made, done, happening, or chosen WITH method or conscious decision".

The impetus behind the selection is random or non-random. In other words, the creation of humanity from a single common ancestor has natural selection as part of it's creation, according to some. Is the impetus for the natural selection, i.e, the environment (the position of land) from a random or non-random occurrence?

Answered, for my part...

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

biggles53 said:
Answered, for my part...

Of course. But not in real life.

OllieFranz · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
I'm simply trying to determine if one of the elements which impact natural selection, the position of the land, is random (per the definition above) or non-random. Non-random would suggest that the position of the land was "made, done, happening, or chosen WITH method or conscious decision".

Assuming that random events even exist,It does not matter, The clearly non-random elements involved in the complex event which is evolution far outweigh any random elements that may exist. We can see and predict the way evolution is trending. If it is getting colder, fur and/or fat(blubber) will get thicker, etc. Evolution is non-random.

The impetus behind the selection is random or non-random. In other words, the creation of humanity from a single common ancestor has natural selection as part of it's creation, according to some. Is the impetus for the natural selection, i.e, the environment (the position of land) from a random or non-random occurrence?

I'm not sure what distinctions you think you are making with all of those phrases doubling back on one another. Spoken plainly I see three questions.

Is selection random or non-random?
Very definitely and very obviously non-random.

Is Universal Common Descent the same as evolution (or "macro-evolution," if you prefer)?
Not exactly. Evolution is a process. UCD is a conclusion based on the fossil record and consistent with that process. No other scientific hypothesis has been successfully proposed to account for the consistency of the fossil record.

Is the lay of the land random or non-random?
The lay of the land is the result of many different processes whether or not there are random elements (if, indeed, randomness exists), the complex of multiple processes is fundamentally non-random.

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

OllieFranz said:
Assuming that random events even exist,It does not matter, The clearly non-random elements involved in the complex event which is evolution far outweigh any random elements that may exist. We can see and predict the way evolution is trending. If it is getting colder, fur and/or fat(blubber) will get thicker, etc. Evolution is non-random.

Again, trying to determine if the 'position of land' impetus on evolution is random or non-random. The other factors can be examined one at a time to determine if those impetuses created humanity from a single life source.

Simply saying it's non-random is only giving one's subjective view.

I'm not sure what distinctions you think you are making with all of those phrases doubling back on one another. Spoken plainly I see three questions.

There is no doubling back. I'm simply sticking with the first claim, the 'position of land' is a non-random event. Others are attempting to ignore the claim and move away from it.

Is selection random or non-random?
Very definitely and very obviously non-random.

Is the impetus, in this case the 'position of the land', which drives natural selection random or non-random?

Is Universal Common Descent the same as evolution (or "macro-evolution," if you prefer)?
Not exactly. Evolution is a process. UCD is a conclusion based on the fossil record and consistent with that process. No other scientific hypothesis has been successfully proposed to account for the consistency of the fossil record.

The larger question is concerning humanity. Are you the result of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism? If not, what is the driving force, the impetus, to which you owe your existence? If so, do you accept the fact that you're, essentially, an accident of nature?

Is the lay of the land random or non-random?
The lay of the land is the result of many different processes whether or not there are random elements (if, indeed, randomness exists), the complex of multiple processes is fundamentally non-random.

Right, is the lay of the land, the 'position of the land' a random or non-random event?

PsychoSarah · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
The aspect of the environment that we're examining is the 'position of land' view that someone brought up as an example of a non-random impetus for natural selection.

Is it random or non-random appearances of land which helps drive natural selection?

You keep trying to say natural selection is random for some reason, I don't know why, and you kept trying to go back farther and father to try and make out again something to be random because some far off aspect of it is. Which is ridiculous.
You tried to say that natural selection was random because the environment was random (which it isn't). I could have stopped you there and shown you how even if it was random, that wouldn't mean natural selection was random, but instead I wanted to see exactly how far you would draw it out.

The Difference between Micro and Macro Evolution

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Junior Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Junior Member

Regular Member

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Counselor

Senior Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Junior Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Chaotic Neutral

Similar threads