Random Chance or Natural Selection

[William]

[Quote from another thread]

bluegreenearth: Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection

William: Q:. What is the difference?

I think the key word is "by" which - with the word "Guided" - implies some type of intelligent designer.
However, when I change the sentence with something along the lines of;

"Evolution is not the result of random chance but of natural selection" the implication of a Creator (some type of intelligent designer) is still to be seen in the words "natural selection".

Given [font=Georgia]Natural Selection[/font] is shown through science to be guiding evolution, it would appear that it is a substitute phrase which seeks to move our thinking away from there being a Creator, into that which is The Creation.

It bestows upon Creation the same necessity which theists bestow upon their Creators...the necessity of being able to guide a process intelligently and with purpose. Not just assigning The Creation with being nothing more than a mindless mishmash which accidentally came about purely by "random chance".

[Difflugia]

No, not at all. I am saying that your "explanations" are not based on observation. I have already stated this but it is worth stating again. If the fossil record is interpreted with a naturalistic philosophy it demands punctuated equilibrium and not Darwinian gradualism.

That's exactly what Eldredge and Gould said, though I'm pretty sure their reasoning was a bit different than yours.

People can explain all kinds of things but without facts to back it up, it means nothing. That is what I am saying.

QFT

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 39 by Bust Nak]

Whether any of these is a fairy tale or not, the least you can do is get the narrative correct. You are in no position to judge if these are fairy tales if you can't tell the difference between what evolution proposes and what Lamarckiansm proposes; can't tell the difference between the implications punctuated equilibrium and saltation.

I said Darwinian gradualism cannot be proved in the fossil record. I also said that the fossil record indicates salvation, not any type of gradualism no matter how fast it may be, according to Darwinian Philosophy. Without evidence, it is a fairy tale.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 42 by EarthScienceguy]

Repeating what you said doesn't answer my charges as they don't seem to have much to do with getting equating evolution with Lamarckiansm or punctuated equilibrium with saltation. What can or cannot be demonstrated scientifically is a separate question to what evolution proposes and does not proposes.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 41 by Difflugia]

That's exactly what Eldredge and Gould said, though I'm pretty sure their reasoning was a bit different than yours.

So What!!! They used a naturalistic philosophy to explain the observations in the fossil record. I use creation philosophy to explain the observations.

The fossil record using naturalistic philosophy demands that the fossil record be interpreted in terms of saltation.

QFT

I do not know what you mean by this. Quadratic Transfer Function?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 43 by Bust Nak]

Repeating what you said doesn't answer my charges as they don't seem to have much to do with getting equating evolution with Lamarckiansm or punctuated equilibrium with saltation. What can or cannot be demonstrated scientifically is a separate question to what evolution proposes and does not proposes.

Then prove it in the fossil record.

This is how it is explained in Wikipedia.

Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism when it is actually a form of gradualism.[62] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sedimentary layers, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".[15]

Evolutionary change appears instantaneous!!!! This is the observation. I do not think Gould's colleagues were as incompetent as Gould would believe by misunderstanding what he was saying. In fact, his colleagues understood all too well the implications of punctuated equilibrium and its support of saltation.

[Bust Nak]

Then prove it in the fossil record...

You don't seem to be responding to what I said. You are talking about proving things when what can or cannot be demonstrated scientifically is a separate question to what a scientific theory proposes and does not proposes.

Evolutionary change appears instantaneous!!!! This is the observation. I do not think Gould's colleagues were as incompetent as Gould would believe by misunderstanding what he was saying. In fact, his colleagues understood all too well the implications of punctuated equilibrium and its support of saltation.

You are doing it again, mixing punctuated equilibrium with saltation.

[Difflugia]

So What!!! They used a naturalistic philosophy to explain the observations in the fossil record.

You keep using "naturalistic" in a pejorative sense, as though it's a weakness to exclude explanations that involve things like angels or leprechauns.

I use creation philosophy to explain the observations.

Is that the one with the leprechauns?

The fossil record using naturalistic philosophy demands that the fossil record be interpreted in terms of saltation.

No. You have demanded that, but no naturalistic philosophy does.

QFT

I do not know what you mean by this. Quadratic Transfer Function?

"Quoted for truth." It means that I agree with your statement, though in this case I mean it ironically and don't agree in the way you intended. People indeed can explain things without needing facts, particularly when those explanations use a philosophy other than naturalism.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 40 by EarthScienceguy]

People can explain all kinds of things but without facts to back it up, it means nothing.

Creationism is completely devoid of facts so any explanations it produces mean nothing.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 47 by Difflugia]

You keep using "naturalistic" in a pejorative sense, as though it's a weakness to exclude explanations that involve things like angels or leprechauns.

Yes, you are correct. Naturalism cannot explain the observations we see taking place in the natural world. Naturalism cannot explain the creation of the universe, stars, life, the geologic column and other events that occurred in the past.

EarthScienceguy wrote:
I use creation philosophy to explain the observations.

Is that the one with the leprechauns?

Who mentioned leprechauns? You are free to believe in anything you wish. If you believe that leprechauns exist you are free to do that. It does not mean that the rest of us have to believe in leprechauns.

EarthScienceguy wrote:
The fossil record using naturalistic philosophy demands that the fossil record be interpreted in terms of saltation.

No. You have demanded that, but no naturalistic philosophy does.

Again you have no evidence that punctuated equilibrium is not saltation. Just because you would like to believe that punctuated equilibrium is not saltation. And people are free to believe anything they wish.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 49 by EarthScienceguy]

Naturalism cannot explain the observations we see taking place in the natural world.

How can you type when you have fingers stuck in both ears and hands covering your eyes? If science has yet to solve a problem it does not mean that everything science has discovered and explained outside of that problem is therefore wrong. But this is what you are suggesting with a broad (and very obviously wrong) statement like that, and most of your other weak arguments against science which are basically the same (ie. science has yet to completely explain origin of the universe, or of life, therefore it is all wrong). That approach just doesn't work, no matter how many times you try it.