Scientifically Observed?

[Emilio Primo]

That is not how evolution is said to have occurred in nature, as has already been explained a number of times. If that's what you're demanding, then you're not going to get it, because it doesn't exist and nobody is saying it does.

 

 

Actually it is, exactly how evolution is said to work. As I already explained earlier.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Moontanman]

Actually it is, exactly how evolution is said to work. As I already explained earlier.

 

 

No Emilio, that is how you think it works, your assertion not only holds zero value in this conversation it is demonstratively false, numerous times evidence of your misconception has been given, simply asserting bullshit over and over will never make it more than bullshit.....

[Sisyphus]

Actually it is, exactly how evolution is said to work. As I already explained earlier.

 

No, it is not. You are mistaken.

 

What you are doing is arguing against a position that nobody holds. That is called a straw man argument, and it is a logical fallacy as well as being against our rules.

 

If you want to know how it is wrong, I suggest abandoning this sprawling mess of a thread and starting a new one with a narrower focus. I would also suggest doing some reading on your own, so you're not starting from scratch going into the discussion. Here is an introduction to evolution on Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

[Moontanman]

Emilio, even though your idea of evolution is indeed not the way it works there are rare instances of abrupt speciation, i provided a list of several of them in the link i provided which you obviously did not read.

[swansont]

 

That's NOT the question I asked, again you are moving the argument from which it never came. So I'll asked again...

 

What caused the rock to fall, in the first place?

 

And I will ask again: why does this matter? What is the difference between rolling a rock intentionally and having it become dislodged because of erosion, if all other physics parameters are the same?

 

First of all what you state above was never my argument.

 

Secondly,

Why can't you provided an example based on the definition of the word intent?

 

 

How about you provide the so called scientific definition for this word, since the standard defintion falls short.

 

So what is the scientific definition for intent?

 

That's the whole point of asking you for it — I don't think there is a scientific definition of intent. I'm not the one proposing that

There is no in between regarding randomness and intent, it's either one or the other.

 

So if a constraint occurs without any conscious intent or influence that means it is random. You either have randomness or you either have intent.

 

 

 

I hope you do not think you just explained why life coming about by chance was not random or intended?

 

 

No, because that's not what you asked; I never said that it was chance (i.e. all outcomes equally probably) and my position has been that random vs intent is a false dichotomy. Did you mean something else by "chance" here?

 

(BTW, just so you don't have to go back and check, you asked "So if it was not random, then what was it, and how so?")

[Emilio Primo]

No Emilio, that is how you think it works, your assertion not only holds zero value in this conversation it is demonstratively false, numerous times evidence of your misconception has been given, simply asserting bullshit over and over will never make it more than bullshit.....

 

 

Really? What evidence? Please repost this evidence that showed my example to be false? Prove it false... Or forever hold your piece.

 

No, it is not. You are mistaken.

 

What you are doing is arguing against a position that nobody holds. That is called a straw man argument, and it is a logical fallacy as well as being against our rules.

 

What you are arguing is called an attempt at misdirection. You try and argue points you know to be true as invalid to hide the flaws in your own argument. This seems to be a trend on this forum.

 

My example is PRECISELY how evolutionary theory is said to have occurred in nature. THIS is how science determined the diversity of life on this planet.

 

Your "evidence" of why my example was inaccurate was because of the fact I used the words "ONE DAY"

 

My example was correct. You saying otherwise is either YOU are not informed, a liar, or you are being deceitful.

 

If you want to know how it is wrong, I suggest abandoning this sprawling mess of a thread and starting a new one with a narrower focus. I would also suggest doing some reading on your own, so you're not starting from scratch going into the discussion. Here is an introduction to evolution on Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

 

 

Annnnnd you link me to wikipedia, the aces of ALL scientific knowledge.

 

And I will ask again: why does this matter? What is the difference between rolling a rock intentionally and having it become dislodged because of erosion, if all other physics parameters are the same?

 

Because it matters, this is the entire base of the argument between us. THAT'S why it matter.

 

 

 

That's the whole point of asking you for it — I don't think there is a scientific definition of intent. I'm not the one proposing that

 

EXACTLY! So the one I gave you, the exact definition of the word should be suitable. So let's go with that, thanks.

 

 

 

 

No, because that's not what you asked; I never said that it was chance (i.e. all outcomes equally probably) and my position has been that random vs intent is a false dichotomy. Did you mean something else by "chance" here?

 

I know what you asked, so I am asking you. If it was not by chance then what esle was it by, and please explain how?

 

(BTW, just so you don't have to go back and check, you asked "So if it was not random, then what was it, and how so?")

 

 

Yes, I know what I asked and you still have yet to answer the question.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Sisyphus]

No, it's not just because you said "one day." At no point does the offspring have to be a different species from the parents. Ever. That's what you're asking for, right?

 

Species are convenient for classifying organisms, but they're ultimately just arbitrary. There is no single boundary. It's just that as the difference increases, it becomes less and less able to be classified as the same. A could be the same species as B and B as C, but not A as C. This happens over time, where C is a more distant ancestor of A than B, or even contemporaneously, as in ring species.

 

So your distant ancestor could be a different species, or your distant cousin (what is meant by speciation - one lineage splitting into two species), but nowhere along the line are anyone's parents a different species. You see the difference?

[Emilio Primo]

No, it's not just because you said "one day." At no point does the offspring have to be a different species from the parents. Ever. That's what you're asking for, right?

 

No, that's not what I am asking. Furthermore I never said the species HAS TO EVER be a differnet species of it's parent. Also that does NOT even matter to the argument because according to evolutionary theory EVENTUALLY THIS will happen.

 

BTW, me saying "ONE DAY" was you the argument you used to claim I was wrong.

 

Species are convenient for classifying organisms, but they're ultimately just arbitrary. There is no single boundary. It's just that as the difference increases, it becomes less and less able to be classified as the same. A could be the same species as B and B as C, but not A as C. This happens over time, where C is a more distant ancestor of A than B, or even contemporaneously, as in ring species.

 

Exactly, but we use species, family, genre, to be more specific. What is your point with this.

 

So your distant ancestor could be a different species, or your distant cousin (what is meant by speciation - one lineage splitting into two species), but nowhere along the line are anyone's parents a different species. You see the difference?

 

What are you talking about? Somewhere along the line, EVENTUALLY the child becomes "different" from the parent. THIS is evolutionary theory. You seem to be misinformed.

 

Where do you think diversity came from, according to evolutionary theory that is?!

[mississippichem]

What are you talking about? Somewhere along the line, EVENTUALLY the child becomes "different" from the parent. THIS is evolutionary theory. You seem to be misinformed.

 

Where do you think diversity came from, according to evolutionary theory that is?!

 

No, the offspring will never be a different species than the parent. I think you misunderstand evolution. Evolution is the result of compounded mutations over the course of very long time periods. If parent A has mutation x [and the mutation isn't deadly or an inhibition to reproduction] and parent B also has mutation x, then it is possible that offspring A' will have mutaion x. Beneficial mutations, especially the ones that give a reproductive advantage, tend to be passed on through generations while detrimental mutations tend to disappear for obvious reasons. Species is defined as a reproductivley isolated population [along with other factors], however this definition is totally arbitrary. After compounding a few billion mutations, sometimes another species is produced.

 

ex. Two human parents who don't express Down Syndrome as a phenotype can have a child with Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome is a mutation that occurs somewhere between gametes [sperm/egg] and an embroyo resulting in an extra chromosome (47), diploid # + 1. Down Syndrome is not a different species, but there are obvious differences in the traits expressed. That is just the change from one generation. Now plug in about 400 million generations and you might be getting something quite different than the first generation.

 

-Biologists: please correct anything I wrote that was worded incorrectly. Please excuse a chemist with only a reasonable knowledge of biology.

[swansont]

 

Because it matters, this is the entire base of the argument between us. THAT'S why it matter.

 

 

Then explain how one can tell if something was done with intent, or it was random.

 

 

EXACTLY! So the one I gave you, the exact definition of the word should be suitable. So let's go with that, thanks.

 

I did. You rejected my example, which fit the definition, stating that it wasn't your position. So the definition is inadequate. (and/or your position is logically inconsistent)

 

 

 

I know what you asked, so I am asking you. If it was not by chance then what esle was it by, and please explain how?

 

 

 

 

Yes, I know what I asked and you still have yet to answer the question.

 

I explained this already: it is a mixture of probabilistic and deterministic processes. How did life come about? You mean the exact steps? I don't know. I don't know if anybody does, or if enough evidence was left behind that would let us work out the exact steps. Still doesn't make the process random; not all outcomes are equally probable.

 

Sorry but my understanding of evolution is clear.

 

…

 

I understand what random is very well, thank you.

 

You know, there's a reason teachers do not merely rely on asking students if they understand the material being taught; many would say,"yes" and then go on to do poorly on the exam. Independent confirmation is required.

[Sisyphus]

No, that's not what I am asking.

 

So why are we talking about it? But then:

 

because according to evolutionary theory EVENTUALLY THIS will happen.

 

So it is what you're asking for, because you think that's what evolutionary theory predicts, and you're demanding examples of it.

 

Exactly, but we use species, family, genre, to be more specific. What is your point with this.

 

My point with this is to explain why what you're claiming is necessary for evolution is not necessary at all, and to explain "where diversity comes from."

 

Population A splits into populations B and C. D is descended from B, and E is descended from C. Like this:

 

time....A

|......../.\

|......./...\

|......B....C

|......|.....|

|......|.....|

V.....D....E

 

A and B are not different species.

A and C are not different species.

B and C are not different species.

B and D are not different species.

C and E are not different species.

D and E are different species.

A and D, and A and E, may or may not be different species.

 

At no point is the immediate ancestor a different species.

[Moontanman]

Really? What evidence? Please repost this evidence that showed my example to be false? Prove it false... Or forever hold your piece.

 

 

 

Emilio, it's not up to me to prove you wrong, you must provide proof of your assertions, so far all you have provided is rhetoric. Simple repeating claims over and over is not proof, provide some proof or forever hold your peace.... BTW I have shown evidence that what you are asserting is false, you have chosen to ignore it....

 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink...

Edited August 20, 2010 by Moontanman

[swansont]

No, that's not what I am asking. Furthermore I never said the species HAS TO EVER be a differnet species of it's parent. Also that does NOT even matter to the argument because according to evolutionary theory EVENTUALLY THIS will happen.

 

 

The example you gave in post #124 is one of an offspring that is a different species than its parents. If you are not proposing that this is a requirement, you should have chosen a better example and not invited people to show you an example of it in order to support evolution, for you are now contradicting yourself. Are you retracting this claim?

[mooeypoo]

What you are arguing is called an attempt at misdirection. You try and argue points you know to be true as invalid to hide the flaws in your own argument. This seems to be a trend on this forum.

!

Moderator Note

What seems to be a trend with you, though, is an affection to flaming the debate.

 

This really isn't necessary, Emilio. People are taking the time to answer and debate with you. Whether you agree with them or not, being obtuse and 'in-your-face' will not help your arguments, and is against forum rules and etiquette.

 

Welcome to the forum.

[Emilio Primo]

Then explain how one can tell if something was done with intent, or it was random.

 

I told you, there is either RANDOM or INTENT there is no third way.

 

 

 

 

I did. You rejected my example, which fit the definition, stating that it wasn't your position. So the definition is inadequate. (and/or your position is logically inconsistent)

 

No, this is false. I gave you the standard definition of intent, YOU rejected it because you claimed it was not scientific enough, but then you later admit there is no scientific definition of intent(Which I already knew, and you did as well)

 

(This is why I keep proclaiming misdirection, and deceit, for this very reason)

 

 

 

I explained this already: it is a mixture of probabilistic and deterministic processes. How did life come about? You mean the exact steps? I don't know. I don't know if anybody does, or if enough evidence was left behind that would let us work out the exact steps. Still doesn't make the process random; not all outcomes are equally probable.

 

THAT is NOT an explanation. Try handing that in as a writting assignment and see what grade you get.

 

 

 

You know, there's a reason teachers do not merely rely on asking students if they understand the material being taught; many would say,"yes" and then go on to do poorly on the exam. Independent confirmation is required.

 

Indeed.

 

!

Moderator Note

What seems to be a trend with you, though, is an affection to flaming the debate.

 

This really isn't necessary, Emilio. People are taking the time to answer and debate with you. Whether you agree with them or not, being obtuse and 'in-your-face' will not help your arguments, and is against forum rules and etiquette.

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

 

I am not trying to flame, and if you read my original OP, this is not what people are addressing. This thread is turning into a war in semantics, I apologize for my behavior, and from now on will show proper respect due, but to keep repeating myself and arguing semantics on a science forum is a bit annoying. Again apologizes to EVERYONE...

 

And thank you for the warm welcome.

 

So why are we talking about it? But then:

 

Sorry?

 

 

So it is what you're asking for, because you think that's what evolutionary theory predicts, and you're demanding examples of it.

 

 

Where is documented evidence of a species over "several" generations slowing becoming another complete separate species, exactly how this planet is fill with diversity, where are these small individual changes in species to new species now. Where is the observable evidence. Yes I am asking for examples of this.

 

My point with this is to explain why what you're claiming is necessary for evolution is not necessary at all, and to explain "where diversity comes from."

 

Population A splits into populations B and C. D is descended from B, and E is descended from C. Like this:

 

time....A

|......../.\

|......./...\

|......B....C

|......|.....|

|......|.....|

V.....D....E

 

A and B are not different species.

A and C are not different species.

B and C are not different species.

B and D are not different species.

C and E are not different species.

D and E are different species.

A and D, and A and E, may or may not be different species.

 

At no point is the immediate ancestor a different species.

 

OK, but I am asking for examples of this:

 

http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionSequencePictures.htm

Edited August 20, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Sisyphus]

I told you, there is either RANDOM or INTENT there is no third way.

 

Simply repeating this over and over as if it is self-explanatory is not getting you anywhere, because nobody else even agrees with you, let alone finds it self-explanatory.

 

If I may perhaps help a bit, it seems that by "intent" and "random" you just mean whether or not somebody specifically wanted an event to occur, or not. And in that sense, yes, of course it's true.

 

However, the source of the disagreement seems to be about whether life came about "randomly," in which the word means something quite different. Using one word in two different senses without distinguishing the two is called equivocation, and it is a logical fallacy.

 

To explain why there are such objections to use of the word "random," think of it this way.

 

Suppose you have a system of objects, and you know absolutely everything there is to know about them at time X. Given all that information, can you predict all that same information for time X + 1?

 

If you can, based on cause and effect, then it the system is deterministic. Given a falling apple's position and velocity, it must follow a specific path, based on the laws of physics.

 

If you cannot, and there is no reason one outcome occurs instead of another, then at least some part of it must be random.

 

If one outcome is not completely predictable but still highly likely, it is probabilistic. Flip a million coins, and it is nearly guaranteed that you will get close to 500000 heads and 500000 tails, even though it is technically possible to get 1 million heads in a row.

 

So, to say that "life arose at random" implies that all possible outcomes (e.g. all possible arrangements of matter) are equally likely, and the arrangement that just happened to occur was life. Nobody believes this. Rather, the rise of life would have been the result of deterministic and probabilistic causes. Life occurred not by the roll of some dice, but by the laws of physics and chemistry.

 

Please confirm or deny that you understand how everyone else is using the word "random" in this thread.

[Sayonara]

I told you, there is either RANDOM or INTENT there is no third way.

Some act I deliberately perform has a secondary outcome that was mechanically inevitable but which I neither desired nor intended, nor did I have the information at hand to personally predict it. Was that outcome random?

 

If "yes", please explain why.

If "no", there's your third way.

[DJBruce]

Where is documented evidence of a species over "several" generations slowing becoming another complete separate species, exactly how this planet is fill with diversity, where are these small individual changes in species to new species now. Where is the observable evidence. Yes I am asking for examples of this.

 

 

 

OK, but I am asking for examples of this:

 

http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionSequencePictures.htm

 

So again it appears you want examples of specieation. You have been given numerous examples by many different people. So I am not sure why you ignore these examples, or refute them by claiming they are not right when in fact you have no evidence of such. The theory of evolution has been widely test and widely accepted in the scientific community. So if you wish to make the claims that evolution doesn't exist or isn't proven why don't you bring some evidence to support your position, and claiming that it has never been observed is bunk as there are probably over a dozen examples of speication in this thread alone.

[swansont]

I told you, there is either RANDOM or INTENT there is no third way.

 

And just after you got done telling me you weren't using circular logic. Is there an objective, independent way of telling if there was intent, so that we can test whether you are presenting a false dichotomy?

 

 

 

No, this is false. I gave you the standard definition of intent, YOU rejected it because you claimed it was not scientific enough, but then you later admit there is no scientific definition of intent(Which I already knew, and you did as well)

 

(This is why I keep proclaiming misdirection, and deceit, for this very reason)

 

 

And yet here you are in a scientific discussion. If there is no scientific, objective definition of intent, there is no way to determine it. It is subjective. Intent cannot be determined by the outcome alone.

 

 

THAT is NOT an explanation. Try handing that in as a writting assignment and see what grade you get.

 

 

If you want a better answer, ask a better question.

 

I am not trying to flame, and if you read my original OP, this is not what people are addressing. This thread is turning into a war in semantics, I apologize for my behavior, and from now on will show proper respect due, but to keep repeating myself and arguing semantics on a science forum is a bit annoying. Again apologizes to EVERYONE...

 

People are arguing semantics because you keep making semantic arguments, with poor or changing definitions.

 

 

 

 

 

Where is documented evidence of a species over "several" generations slowing becoming another complete separate species, exactly how this planet is fill with diversity, where are these small individual changes in species to new species now. Where is the observable evidence. Yes I am asking for examples of this.

 

 

 

OK, but I am asking for examples of this:

 

http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionSequencePictures.htm

 

The link you posted is an example. Try the whale evolution sequence as well.

http://www.squidoo.com/whale-evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

[Emilio Primo]

Simply repeating this over and over as if it is self-explanatory is not getting you anywhere, because nobody else even agrees with you, let alone finds it self-explanatory.

 

It is self explanatory, and has yet to be proven wrong.

 

If I may perhaps help a bit, it seems that by "intent" and "random" you just mean whether or not somebody specifically wanted an event to occur, or not. And in that sense, yes, of course it's true.

 

However, the source of the disagreement seems to be about whether life came about "randomly," in which the word means something quite different. Using one word in two different senses without distinguishing the two is called equivocation, and it is a logical fallacy.

 

I supplied the standard definition of the word to convey the exact meaning I was portraying of the word intent. Nothing more nothing less nothing equivocal.

 

 

To explain why there are such objections to use of the word "random," think of it this way.

 

Suppose you have a system of objects, and you know absolutely everything there is to know about them at time X. Given all that information, can you predict all that same information for time X + 1?

 

If you can, based on cause and effect, then it the system is deterministic. Given a falling apple's position and velocity, it must follow a specific path, based on the laws of physics.

 

If you cannot, and there is no reason one outcome occurs instead of another, then at least some part of it must be random.

 

If one outcome is not completely predictable but still highly likely, it is probabilistic. Flip a million coins, and it is nearly guaranteed that you will get close to 500000 heads and 500000 tails, even though it is technically possible to get 1 million heads in a row.

 

See, here you are confusing PROBABILITY, and POSSIBILITY

 

It will always be a 50/50 chance or PROBABILITY of flipping either heads or tails with a coin no matter how many flips you take or no matter how much time has passed. But the POSSIBILITYof you flipping heads 1 million times in a row is slim to none.

 

 

So, to say that "life arose at random" implies that all possible outcomes (e.g. all possible arrangements of matter) are equally likely, and the arrangement that just happened to occur was life. Nobody believes this. Rather, the rise of life would have been the result of deterministic and probabilistic causes. Life occurred not by the roll of some dice, but by the laws of physics and chemistry.

 

Please confirm or deny that you understand how everyone else is using the word "random" in this thread.

 

Determined by who? Nature? This all goes back to the beginning then.

 

Where did matter and energy come from? And when did "it" determine it's make up and functions?

 

Some act I deliberately perform has a secondary outcome that was mechanically inevitable but which I neither desired nor intended, nor did I have the information at hand to personally predict it. Was that outcome random?

 

If "yes", please explain why.

If "no", there's your third way.

 

How is there a third way? The entire chain process was started by you, regardless of you intended a certain outcome or not. Intent for an outcome was there, no matter IF the INTENDED outcome was achieved, there was still intent.

 

And just after you got done telling me you weren't using circular logic. Is there an objective, independent way of telling if there was intent, so that we can test whether you are presenting a false dichotomy?

 

You still have not supplied an example of neither intent or randomness.

 

 

 

 

And yet here you are in a scientific discussion. If there is no scientific, objective definition of intent, there is no way to determine it. It is subjective. Intent cannot be determined by the outcome alone.

 

You asked for what I meant by intent. I supplied you the standard definition of the word. You asked for a more specific scientific definition, when you knew there was none.

 

 

People are arguing semantics because you keep making semantic arguments, with poor or changing definitions.

 

 

Really? How? I supplied the standard definitive versions of the words in question, you consider that poor? You and others still want a more specific definition. What game are you trying to play here?

 

 

 

The link you posted is an example. Try the whale evolution sequence as well.

http://www.squidoo.com/whale-evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

 

 

Exactly, now show me. When has this ever been observed?

[Ophiolite]

Emilo,

you are using words in a contrary way to everyone else in this discussion. Those others, as far as I can see, are either practicing scientists or have had, or are undergoing, a scientific education. Terminology in science is very important. They all recognise that. They are agreed upon the meaning of certain words here - you disagree. I do wish you would recognise how wrong you are in this regard. It is quite painful to watch you close your eyes to the unpleasant possibility that you may be mistaken.

 

Will you consider exploring one narrow aspect of this topic of semantics, wherein I shall seek to convince you that your definition is wrong? I hope you will else this discussion has passed its Sell By date.

[Sisyphus]

It is self explanatory, and has yet to be proven wrong.

 

It's been explained in several different ways why that dichotomy is insufficient, including in the post you are quoting. I'll try another.

 

You are talking about final cause, the purpose for which something happens. Specifically, whether or not it has one. Everyone else is talking about efficient cause - why something happens the way it does in the more usual sense of causality.

 

Why did you go to the store? To get some eggs.

 

vs.

 

Why did you go to the store? Because of a whole chain of causality, involving hunger in your body, processing in your brain, the action of your muscles, the mechanical working of your car.

 

OR

 

Why did the apple fall from the tree? In order to reproduce.

 

vs.

 

Why did the apple fall from the tree? Because an evolved chemical reaction caused the stem to weaken to the point where the force of gravity on the apple exceeded its tensile strength, and it fell in accordance with the law of gravity.

 

OR

 

Why did our galaxy form the way it did? No purpose. (i.e. your conception of random)

 

vs.

 

Why did our galaxy form the way it did? It's shape was determined by the prior distribution of matter and the uniform laws of physics.

 

Do you see that we're talking about different things? "Random" in the sense of efficient causes means that there is no reason it happens on way and not the other.

 

I supplied the standard definition of the word to convey the exact meaning I was portraying of the word intent. Nothing more nothing less nothing equivocal.

 

Right, you said "not intended" was your definition. But then we were also talking about life coming about "at random," in which the word is used differently.

 

See, here you are confusing PROBABILITY, and POSSIBILITY

 

It will always be a 50/50 chance or PROBABILITY of flipping either heads or tails with a coin no matter how many flips you take or no matter how much time has passed. But the POSSIBILITYof you flipping heads 1 million times in a row is slim to none.

 

No, I am not. Flip 1 million coins, and the probability that you will get approximately 500000 heads is extremely high. But for each individual flip, the probability that it will be heads or tails is 1/2, regardless of previous results.

 

I don't know why you're yelling at me about this.

 

Determined by who? Nature?

 

Nature is not a "who." But in a sense, yes, determined by natural laws.

 

This all goes back to the beginning then.

 

Where did matter and energy come from? And when did "it" determine it's make up and functions?

 

I don't know. I think nobody does, but you'd have to ask a cosmologist on the current state of thought.

 

But generally, describing the falling of an apple does not involve also describing the origins of the universe.

 

 

Where is documented evidence of a species over "several" generations slowing becoming another complete separate species, exactly how this planet is fill with diversity, where are these small individual changes in species to new species now. Where is the observable evidence. Yes I am asking for examples of this.

 

 

 

OK, but I am asking for examples of this:

 

http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionSequencePictures.htm

 

And numerous such examples have been provided. Stop requesting them over and over again.

[Emilio Primo]

It's been explained in several different ways why that dichotomy is insufficient, including in the post you are quoting. I'll try another.

 

You are talking about final cause, the purpose for which something happens. Specifically, whether or not it has one. Everyone else is talking about efficient cause - why something happens the way it does in the more usual sense of causality.

 

 

Why did you go to the store? To get some eggs.

 

vs.

 

Why did you go to the store? Because of a whole chain of causality, involving hunger in your body, processing in your brain, the action of your muscles, the mechanical working of your car.

 

OR

 

Why did the apple fall from the tree? In order to reproduce.

 

vs.

 

Why did the apple fall from the tree? Because an evolved chemical reaction caused the stem to weaken to the point where the force of gravity on the apple exceeded its tensile strength, and it fell in accordance with the law of gravity.

 

OR

 

Why did our galaxy form the way it did? No purpose. (i.e. your conception of random)

 

vs.

 

Why did our galaxy form the way it did? It's shape was determined by the prior distribution of matter and the uniform laws of physics.

 

Do you see that we're talking about different things? "Random" in the sense of efficient causes means that there is no reason it happens on way and not the other.

 

Incorrect, what I am implying is exactly what everyone else is implying. You are saying the same thing throughout this statement, you're just saying it differently.

 

 

 

Right, you said "not intended" was your definition. But then we were also talking about life coming about "at random," in which the word is used differently.

 

How so?

 

 

 

No, I am not. Flip 1 million coins, and the probability that you will get approximately 500000 heads is extremely high. But for each individual flip, the probability that it will be heads or tails is 1/2, regardless of previous results.

 

I don't know why you're yelling at me about this.

 

Yes, you are, here's how....

 

Yes, you are correct...

 

The probability of you flipping either heads or tails from flipping a coin is always 50/50. No matter what.

 

But, you then confuse possibility, here's how...

 

The possibility of you flipping heads 1 million times in a row is slim to none.

 

That is the difference, there is the probability of a 50/50 coin flip, then there is the possibility of probable outcomes.

 

 

I am not yelling, I am stressing my words...

 

Nature is not a "who." But in a sense, yes, determined by natural laws.

 

Please define the way you are imply "determined"

 

 

I don't know. I think nobody does, but you'd have to ask a cosmologist on the current state of thought.

 

But generally, describing the falling of an apple does not involve also describing the origins of the universe.

 

Good to know, and I never described a falling apple to the origins of the universe.

 

And numerous such examples have been provided. Stop requesting them over and over again.

 

No observable example of this, was ever provided.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[swansont]

 

You still have not supplied an example of neither intent or randomness.

 

A rock rolls over an embankment and falls to the ground. Its trajectory is not random. You have not explained how I can tell if there was intent in how it travels, or where there is randomness.

 

 

 

You asked for what I meant by intent. I supplied you the standard definition of the word. You asked for a more specific scientific definition, when you knew there was none.

 

Yes. To show the weakness of your position. You can't support it without a circular definition.

 

 

Really? How? I supplied the standard definitive versions of the words in question, you consider that poor? You and others still want a more specific definition. What game are you trying to play here?

 

S-C-I-E-N-C-E

 

 

Exactly, now show me. When has this ever been observed?

 

So now we're back to the previous semantics. One can see the fossils and get a date for the era from whence they came, as well as other information. Why don't you consider that to be "observed?"

[DJBruce]

No observable example of this, was ever provided.

 

See posts: 3, 6, 15, 18, 24, 84, 85, 107, 111, 119, 123, 128, 144, 150, and those are only the ones where examples are given or linked to. It excludes the numerous other post where people have tried to explain evolution to you. So there you can't say their wasn't any evidence provided.

 

Now lets see some of your responses:

 

But we have yet to observe the evolution of a species into a new and different specie

 

OK, post back when you come across what I asked for...

 

 

the evolution of a species into a new and different species

Plants remained plants, mosquitoes remained mosquitoes, rabbits are still rabbits...

 

Please demonstrate how anyone of these evolved into a new and different species...

 

E. coli is still E. coli....ect, ect ,ect

 

They were STILL the SAME species, one was just infertile. Where is evolution to a new and different species?

 

That is just from the first page of this thread, and so it is obvious that either you are not reading what people are linking to, you are not capable of comprehending what people are linking to, or you are simply ignoring the evidence that stares you directly in the face. Whatever the reason support of evolution has been posted NUMEROUS times and you have failed to refute ANY of it. So rignt now you can't say evolution is proven. How about you either:

 

A.) Refute the evidence in front of you. (Note: Saying "Naha" or "I need evidence" is not a valid argument)

B.) Admit you are wrong about evolution.

Edited August 23, 2010 by DJBruce