[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[pHghost]

Which is absurd - the mechanisms of Darwinism, mutation and natural selection or the idea that mutation and natural selection are purposeless? Or both?

The question as you posed it was absurd.

 

[pHghost]

Are you not confused per se?

:toofunny
Please don't use something if you don't know how to, or maybe even without knowing what it means. But honestly, I don't mind this time because it made me laugh out loud.

 

[pHghost]

But mutations are random and according to you they are required if evolution is to move forward.

Yet it still does not make evolution (even the Darwinian one) a random process.

 

[pHghost]

Does Mayr think mutations are random in his statement above?

Yes, he seems to think that. At least he calls them random mutations.

But whether or not the would make things move in a better direction -- that is the fun of randomness. Most of the time you probably get mutations that do nothing special, really, sometimes mutations that are negative. But, statistically speaking, now and then you HAVE TO have a beneficial mutation, even by mere chance.

Do not forget that in the theory of evolution, these changes happened over billions of years.

 

[zeke]

Yet it still does not make evolution (even the Darwinian one) a random process.

Is it then a process guided by intelligence?

 

[zeke]

Yes, he seems to think that. At least he calls them random mutations.

Was he mistaken or are mutations random?

Do not forget that in the theory of evolution, these changes happened over billions of years.

Aw, yes - anything/everything (even the impossible) is possible given billions of year. Is that what you mean?

 

[zeke]

The question as you posed it was absurd.

How so?

 

[pHghost]

Is it then a process guided by intelligence?

In a way, you could say that, yes.

 

[pHghost]

How so?

Banana or polkadot?

Does this question make any sense? No. The two are unrelated.
Mitsubishi or Honda? Why these two options? Why not Subaru.

You cannot take two statements of your choosing and just randomly pit them against each other.

 

[pHghost]

Was he mistaken or are mutations random?

Good question. Are they truly random? Or are they guided? I don't know. From our human perspective they look random, but that is not to say they truly are.

Aw, yes - anything/everything (even the impossible) is possible given billions of year. Is that what you mean?

Not anything and everything. Definitely not. But getting a positive mutation is statistically bound to happen now and then.

 

[zeke]

You cannot take two statements of your choosing and just randomly pit them against each other.

Can the naturalism of Darwinism and the special creation of God be pitted against each other?

 

[zeke]

Not anything and everything. Definitely not. But getting a positive mutation is statistically bound to happen now and then.

Can "positive mutations" and natural selection account for a common ancestor for man and chimp - given enough time? Is that notion scientific? Is it biblically true?

 

[zeke]

In a way, you could say that, yes.

In what way? Will kalvan agree with you?

 

[pHghost]

Can the naturalism of Darwinism and the special creation of God be pitted against each other?

Yes, they can. But that is not even close to what you were asking, let me remind you:

Did man come to be in a random manner via mutation and natural selection or is mutation and natural selection purposeless?

Regarding question type, it is the same as (and try following the 'logic' of it side by side, you'll see the questions have the same structure):

Did John come up in a joyful manner via elevator or is the elevator blue?

John could have come up in the elevator even if it had been blue -- unless you presume he has a fear of that specific color -- because the color does not affect the way the elevator works. Both sentences have the elevator in them, but they are not mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive, actually they have no effect on each other, thus it makes absolutely no sense to pit them against each other.

The structure, just in case:

Did 'X' happen in manner 'Y' via 'Z' or is 'Z' 'N'?

 

[pHghost]

In what way? Will kalvan agree with you?

If you want a better, more specific answer, you have to ask a better, more specific question. What do you have in mind when you say intelligence? Do you mean God? Then say so and don't wrap it in general nondescript terms. If you don't mean God, please describe precisely what you mean by intelligence, only then can you get a sensible answer.

Why are you asking me if kalvan will agree, why don't you ask him?

 

[zeke]

Yes, they can. But that is not even close to what you were asking, let me remind you:

Did man come to be in a random manner via mutation and natural selection or is mutation and natural selection purposeless?

Regarding question type, it is the same as (and try following the 'logic' of it side by side, you'll see the questions have the same structure):

Did John come up in a joyful manner via elevator or is the elevator blue?

John could have come up in the elevator even if it had been blue -- unless you presume he has a fear of that specific color -- because the color does not affect the way the elevator works. Both sentences have the elevator in them, but they are not mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive, actually they have no effect on each other, thus it makes absolutely no sense to pit them against each other.

The structure, just in case:

Did 'X' happen in manner 'Y' via 'Z' or is 'Z' 'N'?

Did man come to be in a random manner via mutation and natural selection? Is mutation and natural selection purposeless? And your answer is?

 

[zeke]

If you want a better, more specific answer, you have to ask a better, more specific question. What do you have in mind when you say intelligence? Do you mean God? Then say so and don't wrap it in general nondescript terms. If you don't mean God, please describe precisely what you mean by intelligence, only then can you get a sensible answer.

"Intelligence" in context was very clear - do you have your specs on? Guided intelligence vs purposeless naturalism.

Why are you asking me if kalvan will agree, why don't you ask him?

Because I wanted your opinion - do you not have one?

 

[pHghost]

Did man come to be in a random manner via mutation and natural selection?

As outlined before, the manner is not random. So no, man did not come to be in a random manner. Did he come to be via mutation and natural selection? It is possible.

Is mutation and natural selection purposeless?

In itself? Yes, I would say so.

Do you acknowledge that your question made no sense and had no logic in it?

 

[pHghost]

"Intelligence" in context was very clear - do you have your specs on? Guided intelligence vs purposeless naturalism.

No, it wasn't. If it was, I would have answered more directly. There can be a certain 'intelligence' within the natural process itself, even if you were to detach it from God. The word intelligence in your post wasn't even capitalized to denote it as something more. The word intelligence could be interpreted in many different ways. Please use more specific terms when they are available.

Because I wanted your opinion - do you not have one?

I do. But you were asking me about lordkalvan's opinion, but you asked me about it. I don't see into his head any more than you do. So either you know the answer yourself, in which case the question was a provocation, or you don't know that answer yourself, but you now I don't know it either, so the question was again only a provocation.

My opinions are mine, his are his, if you aren't able to make that very simple distinction, no wonder the explanations we are giving here elude you.

 

[Free]

Wow, I am so close to closing this thread. This nonsense has to stop.2