Is Evolution random or non-random

[Immanuel Can]

You need to be less rash

Rash? There's nothing "rash" about noticing an obvious self-contradiction. And it wouldn't simply cease to exist if we were less "rash." It's a problem inherent to your view.

Then state the contradiction! Do you think the devil made me do it---lol!!

Already done, including in this thread. You never seem to comprehend it, for some reason. Maybe you just can't. That's possible. But if so, there's no more I can tell you. You're apparently "predetermined" not to be able to change your mind. (Hint: there it is, again).

[Immanuel Can]

So are you saying evolution is a purely random process

No. Evolutionists say that.

Or are you saying that patterns and "laws" can only be created by a sentient being and that if there were no sentient being who created the universe, then there would be no gravity or electro-magnetic force, etc?

There's a lot to be said about this, Gary. Let's give you just three of the thousands of parameters necessary for the kind of universe we have. What are the mathematical odds that they would happen by chance, according to master mathematician Roger Penrose?

The Cosmological Constant: Adjusted to 1 part in 10¹²⁰.

The Universe’s Expansion Rate: Tuned to 1 part in 10⁶⁰.

Initial Entropy: Estimated at 1 in \(10^{10^{123}}\).

The odds against any of this happening by chance are literally astronomical. But by design? No reason why not, if a Supreme Being exists.

Why do you think a universe can only possibly run by pure chance?

I don't. Secular Evolutionists insist on it, though.

Clearly, our universe doesn't. Why are we to think that it is necessary for a God to create order?

Order indicates intelligence, intention, design, the activity of an intellect.

You can see this very, very easily in everyday life. The minute you see what's called "specifying complexity," you know an intelligence has done something.

What is "specifying complexity," you ask? It's when something is complex, and yet the parts or the whole "specify" a particular function or message. For example, the pocket watch you found in the woods has the "specificity" of being a time-keeping device and specifies the time. And it's "complex," in that it's made up of interworking parts, the removal of which will stop the function. So you know instantly somebody -- an intelligence -- is behind the existence of the watch. And any other hypothesis is simply unreasonable.

But the earth, the universe, even your own self -- these are vastly more complex than the most complex pocket watch. And they specify all kinds of things in multiple ways. They bear the unmistakable marks of things not created by randomness...for as with the paper-dots experiment, you observe that randomness never generates specifying complexity at all. It just produces disorder, chaos, randomness...no matter how much time you suppose.

The other way of pointing this out is to say that the universe is "fine tuned" to an astronomically-high degree, one that makes the chance or randomness hypothesis utterly implausible.

[Walker]

Why do you think a universe can only possibly run by pure chance? Clearly, our universe doesn't. Why are we to think that it is necessary for a God to create order? Why can't our universe have come into being (or perhaps existed eternally or whatever) without a sentient being we refer to as "God?" What logical rule dictates that a universe that is not purely random cannot be without a God?

AI tells us:

Thomas Aquinas on Creation

One of Thomas Aquinas’s most direct statements on creation is found in his Summa Contra Gentiles, where he writes:

“For creation is not a change, but that dependence of the created existence on the principle from which it is instituted, and thus is of the genus of relation; whence nothing prohibits it being in the created as in the subject. Creation is thus said to be a kind of change, according to the way of understanding, insofar as our intellect accepts one and the same thing as not existing before and afterwards existing.” A-Z Quotes

This definition emphasizes that creation is not a mere alteration of an already existing thing, but the bringing into being of something from non-being. For Aquinas, all being proceeds from God as its first cause, and created things depend entirely on God for their existence.

In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas also teaches that creation is the emanation of all being from the first principle — God — and that nothing is presupposed before this emanation, because “nothing” is not the same as “no being” NEW ADVENT. This means that creation is fundamentally different from natural processes, which involve transformation from one being to another, but rather is the origin of being itself.

In summary, Aquinas’s view is that:

• Creation is the origin of all being from non-being.
• It is a dependence of created existence on God.
• It is not a change in the strict sense, but a relation of dependence.
• It is understood as a kind of change only in the way our intellect grasps existence coming into being.

These ideas are central to his metaphysics and theology, forming the basis for his understanding of God as the sole creator of all things.

"because 'nothing' is not the same as 'no being'. This means that creation is fundamentally different from natural processes, ..."

[popeye1945]

Rash? There's nothing "rash" about noticing an obvious self-contradiction. And it wouldn't simply cease to exist if we were less "rash." It's a problem inherent to your view.

Then state the contradiction! Do you think the devil made me do it---lol!!

Already done, including in this thread. You never seem to comprehend it, for some reason. Maybe you just can't. That's possible. But if so, there's no more I can tell you. You're apparently "predetermined" not to be able to change your mind. (Hint: there it is, again).

You're a FRAUD, and I think you know it yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

Then state the contradiction! Do you think the devil made me do it---lol!!

Already done, including in this thread. You never seem to comprehend it, for some reason. Maybe you just can't. That's possible. But if so, there's no more I can tell you. You're apparently "predetermined" not to be able to change your mind. (Hint: there it is, again).

You're a FRAUD, and I think you know it yourself.

This is why I don't bother with you. You aren't paying attention, even to the fundamental self-contradiction in the view you espouse. You're not doing philosophy...just aimless rhetoric in BIG LETTERS.

Nobody has time for that.

[popeye1945]

Already done, including in this thread. You never seem to comprehend it, for some reason. Maybe you just can't. That's possible. But if so, there's no more I can tell you. You're apparently "predetermined" not to be able to change your mind. (Hint: there it is, again).

You're a FRAUD, and I think you know it yourself.

This is why I don't bother with you. You aren't paying attention, even to the fundamental self-contradiction in the view you espouse. You're not doing philosophy...just aimless rhetoric in BIG LETTERS.

Nobody has time for that.

YOU NEED TO POINT OUT THE FLAUD REASONING. YOU NEED TO ENGAGE THE MATERIAL AND NOT JUST MAKE NEGATIVE STATEMENTS. I THINK YOU'RE A BELIEVER, IF SO, THAT REALLY FUCKS UP ONE'S REASONING ABILITIES.

[Immanuel Can]

You're a FRAUD, and I think you know it yourself.

This is why I don't bother with you. You aren't paying attention, even to the fundamental self-contradiction in the view you espouse. You're not doing philosophy...just aimless rhetoric in BIG LETTERS.

Nobody has time for that.

YOU...

Big letters. No thinking.

No thanks.

[Iwannaplato]

So are you saying evolution is a purely random process

No. Evolutionists say that.

They do not say that. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. And this is not just external selection, which is what most people think. You know, it has to lead to changes that at least don't lead to getting wiped out by predators or lead to not having a way to get enough food. There is also internal natural selection. Changes have to work with the existing organism already present set up. Something that might lead to a great trait for the organism but is dangerous in the embryological stages gets selected out. There is also the natural selection of only being able to modify. You can't get a bird from mutations in plants. Natural selection is precisely not random.

I'm sure, like always, you'll consider yourself THE expert of other people's positions,and you'll be comfy with your strawmen.

[phyllo]

So are you saying evolution is a purely random process

No. Evolutionists say that.

They do not say that. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. And this is not just external selection, which is what most people think. You know, it has to lead to changes that at least don't lead to getting wiped out by predators or lead to not having a way to get enough food. There is also internal natural selection. Changes have to work with the existing organism already present set up. Something that might lead to a great trait for the organism but is dangerous in the embryological stages gets selected out. There is also the natural selection of only being able to modify. You can't get a bird from mutations in plants. Natural selection is precisely not random.

I'm sure, like always, you'll consider yourself THE expert of other people's positions,and you'll be comfy with your strawmen.

Second reply of the thread, I posted a pdf link of 13 misunderstandings about evolution And I quoted the misunderstanding about evolution being random.

Did IC bother reading it? Nope.

[Immanuel Can]

Mutations are random, but natural selection is not.

Define what you mean by "random," then.

Nobody and nothing "chooses," so that's a definition of "random." But more, if there is any constraint on the "randomness," then the existence of this constraint would be non-random.

There is also the natural selection of only being able to modify.

This is called, "fixity of species" or "micro-evolution," as opposed to trans-species evolution or "macro-evolution." But the theory needs both.

Everybody recognizes that small variations within a fixed species population are possible; we see it in the species "dog" or "cat" all the time. But what's the issue is the macro level...the idea, as you put it, "You can't get a bird from mutations in plants," to which we might add, "You can't get a cat from a dog," or "a frog from a fish," or "a human being from a chimp." And we have zero cases of macro-evolution, which Evolutionists assure us is only because we don't have the lofty timespans they demand for macro evolution.

Yes, that's kind of a lame excuse. We should have it super-abundantly in the fossil record. We don't.

Natural selection is precisely not random.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "random." It was thought, for example, that it was always the weakest that was killed first. That's not actually true. It's often merely the anomalous or distinct -- for any reason -- that ends up being eliminated from a population.

So there are reasons things are eliminated, but it's not the reasons Evolutionists demanded we believe. And if, by random, we mean, "varying unpredictably," or "associated with chance or circumstance rather than a particular trait," or any of several other meanings of "random," then, yes, it is random in those senses.

So you'll have to come back to the sense in which you insist it's "non-random" and explain what you're attempting to point out.

[Immanuel Can]

Did IC bother reading it? Nope.

Yup. But it wasn't anything special. It didn't at all make clear why "natural selection" was anything other than "random." It just insisted that somehow (presumably somehow we're supposed to imagine for the writer) it just wasn't.

[Gary Childress]

Did IC bother reading it? Nope.

Yup. But it wasn't anything special. It didn't at all make clear why "natural selection" was anything other than "random." It just insisted that somehow (presumably somehow we're supposed to imagine for the writer) it just wasn't.

Can you answer the following:

Yes, no, or unsure: Is evolution a random process?

[phyllo]

Now here are some questions :

Is gravity 'random?

More specifically, is the movement of objects subjected to gravity 'random'?

Does gravity "govern" the motion of objects?

[Impenitent]

gravity is a heavy subject...

gravity governs some motion of all physical objects

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Did IC bother reading it? Nope.

Yup. But it wasn't anything special. It didn't at all make clear why "natural selection" was anything other than "random." It just insisted that somehow (presumably somehow we're supposed to imagine for the writer) it just wasn't.

Can you answer the following:

Yes, no, or unsure: Is evolution a random process?

Tell me what you mean by your use of the word "random."