The Difference between Micro and Macro Evolution

PsychoSarah · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
That's not true. You've never proven it, you've only given your view, your subjective opinion.

"Wouldn't work if it were random" isn't proving anything concerning the 'position of land', one of the impetuses which you suggested impacted natural selection. Again, you're just saying things. Making comments. Giving your view.

You''ve not identified the non-random impetus.

Look, you are stuck on the land thing, ignoring that I don't actually have to prove that it isn't random to prove natural selection isn't random. Which I just did. But I guess you don't care to really think about the fact that were natural selection random we would just as likely have arms where our eyes are and eyes where our butts are as we would have them in their current position, because random natural selection means anything goes, if it appears it can build up in the population just by chance alone.

bhsmte · May 14, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Look, you are stuck on the land thing, ignoring that I don't actually have to prove that it isn't random to prove natural selection isn't random. Which I just did. But I guess you don't care to really think about the fact that were natural selection random we would just as likely have arms where our eyes are and eyes where our butts are as we would have them in their current position, because random natural selection means anything goes, if it appears it can build up in the population just by chance alone.

Stuck is an appropriate term, stuck and spinning his wheels.

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Look, you are stuck on the land thing, ignoring that I don't actually have to prove that it isn't random to prove natural selection isn't random. Which I just did. But I guess you don't care to really think about the fact that were natural selection random we would just as likely have arms where our eyes are and eyes where our butts are as we would have them in their current position, because random natural selection means anything goes, if it appears it can build up in the population just by chance alone.

No, you're not addressing the issue. It's not about random natural selection, it's that the impetus driving natural selection is random. Creation is driven by the environment, in other words. The environment is essentially the creator and creates by a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism.

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

bhsmte said:
Stuck is an appropriate term, stuck and spinning his wheels.

Well.....that's certainly a convincing argument.

bhsmte · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
Well.....that's certainly a convincing argument.

Well, once an argument has been delivered a dozen times or so, who am I to repeat it again.

Sadly though, you are losing your entertainment value and have become boring. Fun while it lasted though.

PsychoSarah · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
No, you're not addressing the issue. It's not about random natural selection, it's that the impetus driving natural selection is random. Creation is driven by the environment, in other words. The environment is essentially the creator and creates by a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism.

The environment isn't random either, the Antarctic isn't going to experience 110 degree temperatures tomorrow, the Sahara Desert isn't going to experience more rainfall this year than Hawaii. But even if the environment was random, natural selection wouldn't be, it just would be that traits which generally work in a wide variety of environments would be more advantageous than ones which are specialized.

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
The environment isn't random either, the Antarctic isn't going to experience 110 degree temperatures tomorrow, the Sahara Desert isn't going to experience more rainfall this year than Hawaii. But even if the environment was random, natural selection wouldn't be, it just would be that traits which generally work in a wide variety of environments would be more advantageous than ones which are specialized.

If the environment is the creator and the environment is random, then creation is random

OllieFranz · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
No, we're going to stick with the issue at hand. The claimed non-random natural selection method of creation.

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

I claim that Darwinist evolution is built upon the very definition of random. Once more, prove that the 'position of land' isn't a random event. I.e., a non-random event.

Exactly my point. You claim that it is random. I don't. Prove to me that random exists. Otherwise you are arguing abot angels dancing on the head of a pin.

OllieFranz · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
If the environment is the creator and the environment is random, then creation is random

You are the one claiming they are random. What is your evidence?

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

OllieFranz said:
You are the one claiming they are random. What is your evidence?

Where is the evidence that it's non-random?

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

PsychoSarah · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
If the environment is the creator and the environment is random, then creation is random

Except I just showed you it isn't, that we see patterns in the weather and it generally doesn't change that significantly or unpredictably shows it isn't random, because if it were it would be just as likely to snow at the equator as it would for it to snow at the poles, which clearly isn't the case.

justlookinla · May 14, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Except I just showed you it isn't, that we see patterns in the weather and it generally doesn't change that significantly or unpredictably shows it isn't random, because if it were it would be just as likely to snow at the equator as it would for it to snow at the poles, which clearly isn't the case.

Wait, are you saying the environment isn't the driving force behind creation by natural selection? Let's not move away from the 'position of land' being non-random. We'll get to the weather later.

Now, if the 'position of the land' is non-random, why is it non-random, i.e., made, done, happening, or chosen WITH method or conscious decision.

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

OllieFranz · May 14, 2014

justlookinla said:
Where is the evidence that it's non-random?

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

If it were random, (assuming randomness exists) there would be no pattern, no predictability. My evidence is right there in the box in your signature. Randomness could never bring about order.

PsychoSarah · May 14, 2014

OllieFranz said:
If it were random, (assuming randomness exists) there would be no pattern, no predictability. My evidence is right there in the box in your signature. Randomness could never bring about order.

True that, although I would argue order can arise without something making it happen that is conscious.

OllieFranz · May 14, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
True that, although I would argue order can arise without something making it happen that is conscious.

Agreed. Science does not require consciousness. Consciousness is an unnecessary assumption for the working out of the laws of science.

biggles53 · May 15, 2014

justlookinla said:
Wait, are you saying the environment isn't the driving force behind creation by natural selection? Let's not move away from the 'position of land' being non-random. We'll get to the weather later.

Now, if the 'position of the land' is non-random, why is it non-random, i.e., made, done, happening, or chosen WITH method or conscious decision.

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

Wrong..................again...!

The opposite of 'random' is NOT 'conscious'..........it's 'biased'....

The bias involved in the appearance of land masses on the earth is the existence and movement of tectonic plates. These plates and their movements permit us to make accurate predictions about the nature and movement of land masses.

Any time you are able to predict outcomes, you no longer have randomness...

You lose...................again...!

Freodin · May 15, 2014

OllieFranz said:
Randomness could never bring about order.

That is not completely correct. Randomness can bring about order... just not complete spatial or temporal order.

justlookinla · May 15, 2014

OllieFranz said:
If it were random, (assuming randomness exists) there would be no pattern, no predictability. My evidence is right there in the box in your signature. Randomness could never bring about order.

In Darwinism, the environment is ultimately the creator of humanity (excluding dna copy errors). If the environment does 'this and that' and natural selection is driven by the 'this and that' of environmental pressures, then the conclusion is that 'this and that' is ultimately the random impetus of creation.

justlookinla · May 15, 2014

biggles53 said:
Wrong..................again...!

The opposite of 'random' is NOT 'conscious'..........it's 'biased'....

The bias involved in the appearance of land masses on the earth is the existence and movement of tectonic plates. These plates and their movements permit us to make accurate predictions about the nature and movement of land masses.

Any time you are able to predict outcomes, you no longer have randomness...

You lose...................again...!

Predict the exact location, date and severity of the next earthquake in the world.

szechuan · May 15, 2014

justlookinla said:
Predict the exact location, date and severity of the next earthquake in the world.

People can't predict exact locations because there are too many Variables that we don't understand yet. We can predict when it would happen and how severe it would be.

Many scientists have already predicted places in the U.S. will one day have a major earthquake.

The Difference between Micro and Macro Evolution

Chaotic Neutral

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Chaotic Neutral

Regular Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Chaotic Neutral

Regular Member

Senior Member

Chaotic Neutral

Senior Member

Junior Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Similar threads