Evolution, directed or un-directed?

[Tart]

For all those who think evolution is not directed, nothing but random chance, how do you know that? How do you know evolution isnt directed by God (or anything else at that matter)?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 236 by For_The_Kingdom]

You've left science. Congratulations; now you are in the land of religion, right along with benchwarmer, DrNoGods, and Bust Nak.

Would you agree with the definitions below, extracted from this thread, for a custom FTK Dictionary?

Macro-evolution: Not the result of a series of "microevolution" events, but an impossibility based on personal incredulity.

Abiogenesis: Any naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life, ocurring on any celestial body.

Panspermia: Just another word for abiogenesis.

Evolution: A process that depends on the mechanism for origin of life, and therefore cannot be valid because it does not explain the origin of life.

Religion: Any belief whether evidence based or faith based ... eg. science, christianity, islam, etc.

Did I miss anything?

Yeah, you missed a lot. You missed about a hundred million years of organisms and their macro changes to different kinds of animals.

If you redefine enough words you can support just about any position you want to take.

And if you give it enough time (x million years), nature can change an organism into just about anything it wants to.

To survive.

It is simple, actually; just throw in a long, extended, time element...along with a "need to survive" concept, and you got a completely new kind of animal making its debut to the world.

But if you accept the standard definitions your opposition to "macro" evolution quickly falls apart.

I accept the standard definitions, but the definitions in itself doesn't make us observe those macro changes any better.

[benchwarmer]

And if you give it enough time (x million years), nature can change an organism into just about anything it wants to.

To survive.

It is simple, actually; just throw in a long, extended, time element...along with a "need to survive" concept, and you got a completely new kind of animal making its debut to the world.

If this is what you think the ToE is, you are still wrong.

Nature doesn't 'want' and I have no idea what your 'need to survive' concept is.

Do you agree that organisms must survive long enough to reproduce in order to actually reproduce? Is this what you are talking about? That's what the ToE requires not some magical 'need' that is imparted to any organisms.

It's odd watching you admit you understand the concept, but then throwing in extra elements that aren't there to give yourself something to disagree with.

In a previous reply, you admitted that you believe evolution takes place and that it causes changes. You even said that such changes will result in the same type of organism, but with a lot of changes. So far we are all in agreement. Where you get caught up is that at some point people decided to call organisms that changed a lot something else. Apparently 'fox' and 'labradoodle' are fine with you, but 'ancient reptile' and 'modern bird' is too much for you because they look so vastly different. I think foxes and labradoodles look pretty different too.

What do you think of this creature?


Bird? Squirrel? Which 'kind' is it?

[Bust Nak]

I don't know about "only".

Again, that's what we are here for, to fill in for what you don't know.

It doesn't answer your question because "could I be wrong about argument from consciousness" was not the original question.

The answer to the original question was "no". Now, moving along to the new question...no, I could not be wrong about the argument from consciousness.

Now that takes faith.

Hey, I am just the messenger. Kill the message (evolution is a lie), not the messenger (me).

You are not just the messenger, you are the originator of the message.

Observation is one of the fundamental principals of the scientific method. You can't take observation out of the equation and still claim you are doing science.

When you take observation out of the equation, it becomes speculation.

Right, but that's moot since observation is indeed part of the equation.

Well, until you start knowing instead of assuming, perhaps you should be slow to speak on such matters.

There is no assumption there. I know as soon as a better naturalistic theory is available, I will discard evolution. I know it's not the case that evolution must be true.

True, evolution is false...but how I got to that conclusion is vastly different than your portrayal.

You say that yet you think theistic evolution is possible. That means the only reason why you would think naturalistic evolution is impossible is your religion.

Oh agree...I just don't see how it relates to what we are talking about.

You were suggesting that mindlessness implies chaos, I am saying chaos may well imply mindlessness, but that doesn't mean mindlessness implies chaos.

I was just telling you what I am willing to accept...based on the Big Three. I understand you may not like that, but hey.

Yes, I don't like any irrational claim. But it's not about what I may or may not like, it's about having a debate.

I also never saw a cheetah give birth to a domestic cat, but despite this lack of an observation, it is clear that a cheetah and a domestic cat are the same kind of animal.

What were you saying about going beyond observation again?

Maybe a fox is able to reproduce with a dog...sounds like a good area for biologists to dive in to...all goes back to experiment, you know, science stuff.

It's already been done. There are reports of dog-fox hybrid, but none confirmed genetically.

Well let me put it to you this way; I've never see it, nor do I have any reasons beyond observation to conclude that it can/has occurred.

That doesn't help one bit, you are still staying the same thing as before. You are still equating what you have personally seen with "observation."

I understand why that is what you believe.

Is it because you understand that I have indeed observed it?

Only in a perfect world would people agree with everything you say. Only.

I'll take that as a compliment.

When something don't make sense to me or I lack understanding in something, I question it.

Then question it - point out what doesn't make sense to you, and the reasoning behind your thinking.

It is called; humor.

Humor doesn't address whatever point I was rising.

Honesty....More honesty.

Doesn't matter if you were honest or not, either way it is a failure to advance the conversation.

Expression.

Yes, in place of address the points. Guilty as charged.

So, if I do my homework and give you examples of those who said/implied that evolution is a brute fact...will you apologize for being disingenuous?

No, instead I would affirm that you were correct and I was mistaken.

If you were as active in this thread as you claim you are, then we really shouldn't be having this discussion.

Or perhaps the implication that you think is there, isn't.

Nature is nature.

Yes, but how does that change anything I said?

Yes it does..in this situation (since evolution is based on contingency, not necessity), to believe in evolution based upon faith is to admit that it isn't a brute fact.

That doesn't follow at all. Gravity is based on contingency, not necessity), yet no faith is required to believe in gravity without somehow saying it's a brute fact.

Disingenuous. I see I am going to have to keep my convo's with you to a minimum as well.

Yet another hand waving dismissal.

I said that macroevolution could be inferred from the fossil record? Show me.

"the conclusion[macroevolution] does not (necessarily) follow from the discovery[fossil record]."

Well, when I scientifically observe it, I will see it.

That wouldn't help unless you stop thinking until you will see it it is not scientifically observed.

It sure isn't. I have no problem with that, you do.

Faith.

No faith required, it's observed.

Disingenuous. No one said that they literally used the term "brute fact". I am saying that yeah, as you say, they are treating it as if it is obviously "true" and impossible to be falsified. I call that a "brute fact"....because that is what they are implying, that evolution is a brute fact.

I know that, I was asking you what gave you that impression, not who said or didn't say "brute fact."

Because same kinds tend to look similar...and they look similar enough to be considered the "same kind".

What is similar enough and isn't similar enough though? You have no objective criteria, hence my earlier accusation of a arbitrary standard.

There are no labels on fossils, either...but that hasn't stopped you people (evolutionists) from doing your thang...has it?

Right, because we have science.

Well, if you are claiming that a reptile slowly evolved into a bird through generations of reproducing...then that is exactly what you are disputing.

Incorrect. There is no such dispute. The "reptile-bird transformation" as you called it, does invoke only animals producing what they are, instead of what they are not.

I haven't seen anything close to a reptile-bird transformation.

Again, irrelevant what you have and haven't seen. What matters is whether it has or hasn't been scientifically observed.

What? No where have I ever said or alluded to that. I said that the Bible states that animals will produce after their kinds, and that is what I see. Nothing more, nothing less.

You say that yet you think foxes and dogs are the same kind, even when you cannot see dogs giving births to foxes.

If I can observe it, I can see it. I can't see it, so I can't observe it.

That's still moot, because what you can or cannot see is not a valid indication of what is and isn't scientifically observed. You are very fond of repeating yourself without address what is being said,

I mean exactly what the definition mean...

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
ˌ�bī�ˈjenəsəs/Submit
noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

And I've been consistent with my understanding and definition of it since day 1-0.

But that is incomplete since it doesn't mentioned the limitation to Earth, as it's being explained to you again and again.

You got the floor. Show me.

Check the records thread.

It is softer because God is in the equation...however, with God out of the equation, things tend to get more animated.

Right, but it also invalidate the kinds argument, since vertebrate CAN be one of the original kind, from which birds, reptile and other such animals originated from.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Again, that's what we are here for, to fill in for what you don't know.

Ok, so now that I "know", I don't accept it.

Now that takes faith.

Sure does, reasonable faith...as opposed to you believing in evolution, which is blind faith.

You are not just the messenger, you are the originator of the message.

If the message is true, it doesn't matter where the truth came from.

Right, but that's moot since observation is indeed part of the equation.

Well..

There is no assumption there. I know as soon as a better naturalistic theory is available, I will discard evolution. I know it's not the case that evolution must be true.

Good stuff.

You say that yet you think theistic evolution is possible. That means the only reason why you would think naturalistic evolution is impossible is your religion.

If I had reasons to think that naturalistic evolution was possible, I wouldn't think it is impossible.

You were suggesting that mindlessness implies chaos, I am saying chaos may well imply mindlessness, but that doesn't mean mindlessness implies chaos.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Yes, I don't like any irrational claim. But it's not about what I may or may not like, it's about having a debate.

LOL.

What were you saying about going beyond observation again?

I said "a cheetah and cat are clearly the same kind of animal"...that IS the observation.

It's already been done. There are reports of dog-fox hybrid, but none confirmed genetically.

Then apparently, the case remains open.

That doesn't help one bit, you are still staying the same thing as before. You are still equating what you have personally seen with "observation."

You know how they say "possession is 9/10 of the law". Same concept, observation is 1/3 of science. If you aren't going to give me a direct observation of the alleged phenomena, then at least provide evidence of it leading that direction.

So far, I see neither.

Is it because you understand that I have indeed observed it?

You've never observed a reptile-bird transformation in nature. If that ain't what you mean when you say "observe", then we ain't talking about the same thing.

Then question it - point out what doesn't make sense to you, and the reasoning behind your thinking.

If I just leave a "?", then that would mean that the whole thing doesn't make sense to me.

Humor doesn't address whatever point I was rising.

But it is still funny, nevertheless.

Doesn't matter if you were honest or not, either way it is a failure to advance the conversation.

Subjective.

No, instead I would affirm that you were correct and I was mistaken.

Fair enough.

Or perhaps the implication that you think is there, isn't.

I don't need to imply, just ask them directly. They are bold and boisterous..they will tell you.

Yes, but how does that change anything I said?

I don't recall..

That doesn't follow at all. Gravity is based on contingency, not necessity), yet no faith is required to believe in gravity without somehow saying it's a brute fact.

Because you can observe gravity, so whether or not it occurs or exists is never really up for debate. Abiogenesis/macroevolution, on the other hand..

Yet another hand waving dismissal.

Yet you are hand waving at your "disingenougness".

I said that macroevolution could be inferred from the fossil record? Show me.

"the conclusion[macroevolution] does not (necessarily) follow from the discovery[fossil record]." [/quote]

Doesn't look like an "infer" to me.

That wouldn't help unless you stop thinking until you will see it it is not scientifically observed.

Ok, lets take "observation" out of it...now we are left with experiment and prediction...can you conduct any experiment that would lead you to believe conclusively that a reptile evolved into a bird...and what predictions can you make as a result of this experiment.

Never mind the fact that we can't observe it in nature...lets just move right along to the next two.

No faith required, it's observed.

If it is observed, then why are you challenging the relevancy of whether or not I can see it with my own two eyeballs?

I know that, I was asking you what gave you that impression, not who said or didn't say "brute fact."

Umm, based on their STATEMENTS, perhaps...maybe?

What is similar enough and isn't similar enough though? You have no objective criteria, hence my earlier accusation of a arbitrary standard.

Well, show me some pictures and I will tell you..

Right, because we have science.

SMH.

Incorrect. There is no such dispute. The "reptile-bird transformation" as you called it, does invoke only animals producing what they are, instead of what they are not.

Ok, so the moral of the story is simple; you believe that a reptile is in fact a bird, and I am saying; no it isn't.

Again, irrelevant what you have and haven't seen. What matters is whether it has or hasn't been scientifically observed.

Oh, so even though it can't be seen, it can be scientifically observed? Makes no sense.

You say that yet you think foxes and dogs are the same kind, even when you cannot see dogs giving births to foxes.

Maybe foxes are at the bottom of the gene pool, same way with cheetahs...I don't know, that is an area for science to play around in...or, foxes may very well be its own "kind".

Either way, that has nothing to do with whether or not a reptile evolved into a bird x-million of years ago.

That's still moot, because what you can or cannot see is not a valid indication of what is and isn't scientifically observed. You are very fond of repeating yourself without address what is being said,

Ok, cool. Well, lets just see if experiment/prediction can get us somewhere...see above...

But that is incomplete since it doesn't mentioned the limitation to Earth, as it's being explained to you again and again.

Completely irrelevant.

Right, but it also invalidate the kinds argument, since vertebrate CAN be one of the original kind, from which birds, reptile and other such animals originated from.

Ok, fine; that is your hypothesis, but what have you done to corroborate it? Nothing. Just talk. I want evidence, not bio babble.

[benchwarmer]

Ok, fine; that is your hypothesis, but what have you done to corroborate it? Nothing. Just talk. I want evidence, not bio babble.

The problem here, FtK, is that what you call "bio babble" is in fact actually called Biology. If you would actually bother to go take some courses in it, you would learn what all these complicated terms like 'vertabrate' mean. If you don't believe what we are telling you about common ancestry, go take some courses in genetics like I've mentioned multiple times. Take courses with lab work. You will get to actually see things with your own eyeballs. You won't see lizards giving birth to pigeons or other ridiculous sorts of strawmen, but you will learn exactly why science claims to observe which animals are related without needing to be present at the copulation or the birth. Is it work to do this? Of course. Sadly we can not hand you evidence in an online debate forum like you seem to be expecting. Put on a lab coat and find out yourself if you think it's all a scam.

Instead of actually learning why science makes the claims that it does, you just plug your ears, close your eyes, and scream 'bio babble'.

It's like us telling you there is a pie in the oven and you don't believe us. We tell you to go look in the oven yourself and you just keep repeating 'cooking babble'.

[Bust Nak]

Ok, so now that I "know", I don't accept it.

Then what are you even doing here, you are just professing your faith.

Sure does, reasonable faith...as opposed to you believing in evolution, which is blind faith.

Not a great comparison as evolution requires no faith, it is backed by empirical evidence.

If the message is true, it doesn't matter where the truth came from.

It matters when you claim to be "just the messenger."

If I had reasons to think that naturalistic evolution was possible, I wouldn't think it is impossible.

That doesn't help. At best that could lead you to agnosticism.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Roll two regular dice randomly and sum the value rolled, it doesn't take that many repetitions to generate the typical bell curve. This is a trivial example of order from mindlessness.

I said "a cheetah and cat are clearly the same kind of animal"...that IS the observation.

You merely eyeballed the similarities, you went beyond that and concluded they are the same kind, but some how that counts as observation, and yet evolution is relying on blind faith. Explain this inconsistency.

Then apparently, the case remains open.

It really is not, they are different species.

You know how they say "possession is 9/10 of the law". Same concept, observation is 1/3 of science. If you aren't going to give me a direct observation of the alleged phenomena, then at least provide evidence of it leading that direction.

But we have given direct observation of macroevolution and you just dismiss it with "well that just microevolution." And that's beside the fossils that I kept bringing up.

You've never observed a reptile-bird transformation in nature.

But we have though, via fossils record.

If I just leave a "?", then that would mean that the whole thing doesn't make sense to me.

But why doesn't it make sense? We don't know what further explanation you need if you don't tell us.

But it is still funny, nevertheless.

Either way, I am justified in accusing you of "hand waving dismissal."

Subjective.

No, it's not subjective, you keep repeating the same old dismissals.

Fair enough.

So can I expect you to do your homework and give me examples of those who said/implied that evolution is a brute fact?

I don't need to imply, just ask them directly. They are bold and boisterous..they will tell you.

I'd rather you do the homework and not get me to do it for you.

I don't recall..

You don't recall because it doesn't actually address anything I said.

Because you can observe gravity, so whether or not it occurs or exists is never really up for debate.

First of all that's special pleading. You claimed that since evolution is based on contingency, not necessity, to say it's not a brute fact is to say we believe it on faith. I gave you a counter example and now you say it doesn't count.

Perhaps more to the point we can observe macro evolution, so whether or not it occurs or exists is never really up for debate, and yet here you are.

Yet you are hand waving at your "disingenougness".

That's because you have no case accusing me of being disingenuous.

Doesn't look like an "infer" to me.

But does it look like an affirmation that it could be inferred, but not necessarily so?

Ok, lets take "observation" out of it...now we are left with experiment and prediction...can you conduct any experiment that would lead you to believe conclusively that a reptile evolved into a bird...and what predictions can you make as a result of this experiment.

I predict they would have bone structures and genes that fits into a nested hierarchy.

If it is observed, then why are you challenging the relevancy of whether or not I can see it with my own two eyeballs?

Because you kept insisting that it is not observed because you have not seen in with your own two eyeballs.

Umm, based on their STATEMENTS, perhaps...maybe?

Such as...? You've stalled long enough, give me some examples.

Well, show me some pictures and I will tell you..

Telling me what similarities they have doesn't help make it an objective criteria.

Ok, so the moral of the story is simple; you believe that a reptile is in fact a bird, and I am saying; no it isn't.

I am telling you, they are of the same kind.

Oh, so even though it can't be seen, it can be scientifically observed? Makes no sense.

Come on! Can you see the wind? This is kindergarten level science.

Maybe foxes are at the bottom of the gene pool, same way with cheetahs...I don't know, that is an area for science to play around in...or, foxes may very well be its own "kind".

Either way, that has nothing to do with whether or not a reptile evolved into a bird x-million of years ago.

But it does have something to do with reptile-bird transformation since the argument you used to against it relies on whether they are the same kind or not. With my example of foxes and dogs, I am demonstrating that "kinds" is contrive.

Completely irrelevant.

How is the meaning of the word irrelevant to how it is being used?!

Ok, fine; that is your hypothesis, but what have you done to corroborate it?

I have personally wrote computer code used in modelling evolution both macro and micro, but that's neither here or there, so I'll just appeal to all the work that the scientific community has done in fields relating to macro evolution.

I want evidence, not bio babble.

You were given plenty of evidence.