Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise all we have from you is an opinion."Billions of years" cannot reasonably cover this level of chance.
<snip> Again, billions of years simply cannot account for this.
I believe it has already been pointed out that words have often multiple meanings.
You are choosing one here that fits your understanding of evolution, but that understanding appears to be faulty.
It is apparent that you do not understand evolution. I do not think I can rectify this in a couple of posts, especially when you seem to have a hostile attitude to considering alternatives.
I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me what I think and why I think it.
Otherwise all we have from you is an opinion.
Demonstrate that this is the case. Otherwise all we have from you is an opinion.
You make it sound as if my words were inadequate and open to misinterpretation. Do not blame others for your lack of comprehension. You chose to read into my words something which was not there and which I did not imply. You should, indeed, look to yourself and read more carefully.Good. So we are agreed that the rule is nonsense and that the researchers did not assert it.
(On the subject of misinterpretation I have a rule. If my words, verbal or written, are misunderstood I look to myself as the probable source of the misunderstanding. I encourage others to do likewise. [And I am aware of how one could 'misinterpret' that comment for a humorous put down.])
You chose to read into my words something which was not there and which I did not imply.
Irrelevant. Whether a process is random is independent of whether or not humans have a tendency to ascribe purpose to processes, and independent of whether human language tends to ascribe purpose. Your claim that no one is allowed to use words with any hint of purpose to describe a lack of purpose lacks any foundation in linguistics: we can use language in any way we choose, as long as it serves to communicate. You don't get to dictate how people use language.No matter how you try to define a process which is completely random, you will never find a definition which accurately does so, because we humans are created to crave and seek out purpose and meaning. You may program a set of virtual dice to always roll randomly, and in that sense you could have a "process which is random", but that would still be inaccurate because you first had to define or, "set within limits", the dice to behave randomly.
Again, words which imply meaning, purpose and intent are off limits to you when describing any theory which does not support purpose and meaning.
As it happens, I'm inclined to believe that there is meaning and purpose to evolution (what with being a Christian and all), but that has nothing at all to do with the meaning of "random" when it comes to evolution.You can't have it both ways, but you want to, because deep down you know you can't support a theory for how you came to be which has no purpose or meaning to it.
Where did you get the idea that you owned the language?Stop stealing our language to give your own meaningless theory something more than it deserves. -_-
Irrelevant. Whether a process is random is independent of whether or not humans have a tendency to ascribe purpose to processes, and independent of whether human language tends to ascribe purpose. Your claim that no one is allowed to use words with any hint of purpose to describe a lack of purpose lacks any foundation in linguistics: we can use language in any way we choose, as long as it serves to communicate. You don't get to dictate how people use language.
Correct. Your words were inadequate and were misinterpreted. This was not a big deal. You are turning it into one.You make it sound as if my words were inadequate and open to misinterpretation.
You made a mistake and can't admit it, then resort to passive-aggressive threats of moderation. That says a lot about you.Correct. Your words were inadequate and were misinterpreted. This was not a big deal. You are turning it into one.
If you will reflect for a moment it is the reader who gets to decide the clarity of the writing. Not the writer. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.
I welcome it when readers tell me something I have written is unclear or ambiguous. I regret you do not share this approach. To avoid this becoming silly and subject to moderation I am placing you on ignore for a week. If you feel compelled to address it further strike up a conversation, but let's not derail this thread further.
Correct. Your words were inadequate and were misinterpreted. This was not a big deal. You are turning it into one.
No, you need to read more carefully. Just to clarify, this is what they said:...So, they didn't find one, single example of any evolutionary mutation which made the animal a little more simple, out of billions of examples over billions of years? Uh huh...
The reason for this seems to be that the less complex crustaceans don't survive:
I've already pointed out that the specific meanings in question are standard ones for the words in question. You're the one who wants to restrict the meaning, based on some odd notions about how humans use words. The words "process" and "mechanism" do not necessarily imply purpose or intent to speakers of standard English. Your impression here is simply wrong.To me, this looks like a case of personal bias showing. It's like you're saying, "Words have specific meanings? Irrelevant.
Um, huh? Refining meaning is part of communication.If the goal were communication, (as you describe it), then all we'd need is a stick to bang on something, once for yes and twice for no. We use words to refine the meaning we want to communicate.
Sorry, but that's not the meaning of the word "evolution". At all. It's not remotely what I mean by it, and I study evolution for a living. Perhaps you should take to heart your own comments about trying to change the meaning of words.So, what is evolution meant to communicate? How we came to be here without the need for any intelligence, purpose, or design behind it. That's it. That is the essence of evolution.
That's not what "random" means in this context. To a scientist, "random" means having an unpredictable outcome. In the specific context of evolution, it means "random with respect to fitness", that is, that there is no mechanism by which an organism's need dictates which mutations occur. I am talking about evolution, I'm talking about random mutations -- in the sense that scientists use the term -- and those processes are completely consistent with a divine purpose for evolution.Perhaps you could argue that God is at work behind all the changes, but then that necessarily means the changes were not random; they happen as a result of intelligent design and therefore you would no longer be talking about evolution.
Your statement is empirically false. Many, many Christians accept evolution as the physical means by which life's diversity has developed.Evolution is not consistent with Christianity.
Perhaps if you listened to what other people were saying, rather than trying to dictate their language to them, you wouldn't be confused.If you believe God is behind the various changes over billions of years (or whatever) then you need a different name for what you're describing, because calling it evolution will only cause confusion.
My point was simply to point out that maintaining or increasing complexity is not a 'rule' of evolution. It just happens to be particularly advantageous for crustaceans. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on the context. Sometimes a mutation can be both advantageous and disavantageous in different circumstancesBut isn't this just another way of saying, "Organisms which get beneficial mutations survive". "More complex" is just a synonym for "more benefited from a particular mutation". That's what evolutionists have been saying since the theory became popular.
I guess I'm still missing the point of the argument.
I've already pointed out that the specific meanings in question are standard ones for the words in question. You're the one who wants to restrict the meaning, based on some odd notions about how humans use words. The words "process" and "mechanism" do not necessarily imply purpose or intent to speakers of standard English. Your impression here is simply wrong.
Um, huh? Refining meaning is part of communication.
Sorry, but that's not the meaning of the word "evolution". At all. It's not remotely what I mean by it, and I study evolution for a living. Perhaps you should take to heart your own comments about trying to change the meaning of words.
That's not what "random" means in this context. To a scientist, "random" means having an unpredictable outcome. In the specific context of evolution, it means "random with respect to fitness", that is, that there is no mechanism by which an organism's need dictates which mutations occur. I am talking about evolution, I'm talking about random mutations -- in the sense that scientists use the term -- and those processes are completely consistent with a divine purpose for evolution.
Your statement is empirically false. Many, many Christians accept evolution as the physical means by which life's diversity has developed.
Perhaps if you listened to what other people were saying, rather than trying to dictate their language to them, you wouldn't be confused.
So, what is evolution meant to communicate? How we came to be here without the need for any intelligence, purpose, or design behind it. That's it. That is the essence of evolution.
An animal living in a desert climate may mutate a thick coat of fur. Of course it will die. If the same animal had lived in a cold climate, it probably would have lived. No selection to it. Only random chance according to the mutations.
What are the non-random parts?
This is one of the more interesting aspects of evolution; sexual reproduction. At some point, for every species which reproduces through sex, there had to be a mutation which facilitated the change from asexual to sexual.
This means that for every, single species which reproduces sexually, there had to be two mutations, one for the male and the other for the female, and these mutations would have needed to occur to organisms which lived in the same area and within a few years of one another. "Billions of years" cannot reasonably cover this level of chance.
And on top of this, most evolutionists will say the mutations are gradual, but the process of reproduction for most sexually reproducing animals isn't simple. The process contains several steps often involving multiple sets of organs working together. This isn't a gradual or small step. We're talking huge change involving several parts within the organism as a result of a single mutation? And this supposedly happened in every species, out of the millions that exist? Again, billions of years simply cannot account for this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?