Is Evolution random or non-random

[Immanuel Can]

We don't know what is creating that. By agency, do you mean a government "agency" or a privately owned "agency"? Still trying to smuggle in an argument?

No, obviously not. In philosophy, the word "agency" simply means "force" or "active thing." It's a very general term, so I'm not pinning you down on what dynamic you can implicate.

So what is the dynamic, force or agent that is constraining evolution, in your theory?

You're trying to smuggle in an argument based on the word you choose to use.

Nope, nothing of the kind.

...if I choose "governed," then you are going to equivocate and tell me that only sentient beings can "govern" something,

If you really think I was going to do that, you should have waited until I did, and you could have been smugly right. But as it was, I wasn't going to. I was merely going to ask you what the nature of such an agency might be.

[phyllo]

Whether a god created the physical laws or the physical laws are a property of a spontaneous universe is irrelevant to the fact that natural selection is not random.

[Gary Childress]

No, obviously not. In philosophy, the word "agency" simply means "force" or "active thing." It's a very general term, so I'm not pinning you down on what dynamic you can implicate.

So what is the dynamic, force or agent that is constraining evolution, in your theory?

You're trying to smuggle in an argument based on the word you choose to use.

Nope, nothing of the kind.

...if I choose "governed," then you are going to equivocate and tell me that only sentient beings can "govern" something,

If you really think I was going to do that, you should have waited until I did, and you could have been smugly right. But as it was, I wasn't going to. I was merely going to ask you what the nature of such an agency might be.

Then why did you ask me what "agency" constrains evolution when I had already told you that we don't know what constrains it. We do know that DNA cannot mutate to create a zebra out of a fish egg. We know that species that survive tend to have traits that suit their environment to the degree that they can survive. Need I say more to you? Does "I don't know" indicate that there is a "God"?

[Immanuel Can]

You're trying to smuggle in an argument based on the word you choose to use.

Nope, nothing of the kind.

...if I choose "governed," then you are going to equivocate and tell me that only sentient beings can "govern" something,

If you really think I was going to do that, you should have waited until I did, and you could have been smugly right. But as it was, I wasn't going to. I was merely going to ask you what the nature of such an agency might be.

Then why did you ask me what "agency" constrains evolution when I had already told you that we don't know what constrains it.

Well, because when something happens that's wildly against the odds, it needs an explanation.

For example, if you went to play roulette, and put all your money on "00," and won three times in a row, then anybody with an ounce of common sense is going to say, "Something's deliberately been done to this roulette wheel." That which is chance or random should produce chance or random outcomes; not highly improbable sequences of results. And if highly improbably sequences appear, it demands explanation.

The universe we have is an astronomically-unlikely thing. By all rights, it should not exist at all. In fact, even secular experts will freely admit that much. So how has the roulette wheel hit "00" a billion and more times in a row? We need an explanation, if the theory is going to have any justification to be taken seriously.

[phyllo]

There are only 4 cases.

1. A god created things as they are

2. A god evolved plant and animals and humans by direct intervention

3. A god created the physical laws and evolution happens because of these laws without intervention

4. The physical laws are a property of the universe and evolution happens because of these laws

[Immanuel Can]

There are only 4 cases.
4. The physical laws are a property of the universe and evolution happens because of these laws

Logically, one cannot use a contingent entity to explain its own existence. The universe is a contingent entity, and its laws are merely properties of that already-existent entity. One can't say, "The universe exists because the universe exists." And one can't say that the universe exists because the materials that form it and the laws governing it "just exist."

It's not an explanation of the cause of anything.

[phyllo]

Evolution is not random no matter what the cause of the universe

[Immanuel Can]

Evolution is not random no matter what the cause of the universe

Then what is governing it?

[phyllo]

I already wrote what "governs" evolution

[Immanuel Can]

I already wrote what "governs" evolution

But "natural selection" isn't a cause. It's a sub-category of the alleged evolutionary process of the universe, once the universe already exists. But what governs the natural laws, such as the strong and weak force in the atom, that make the very existence of the universe itself -- and evolution itself -- possible?

[phyllo]

Yup, keep changing the subject instead of just admitting that evolution is not random.

[Immanuel Can]

Yup, keep changing the subject instead of just admitting that evolution is not random.

I don't agree it's even a thing. It's your theory, so it's up to you to explain it...if it can be made to make any sense.

[phyllo]

Why are you even posting in this tread?

[Immanuel Can]

Why are you even posting in this tread?

To see if your theory makes any sense.

[Impenitent]

...We do know that DNA cannot mutate to create a zebra out of a fish egg...

who needs Beluga?

get your zebra caviar here! it even tastes stripey!!

-Imp