Some Arguments Against Evolution

[Faid]

You see, I have said it already several times in this forum, namely, that atheists' arguments against God are silly attempts at mockery, parody, and misdirection.

Do you notice, phank, what you are into in your post above?

Is it mockery, parody, or misdirection?

Or all three because of your psychology of not being serious and rational to the issue of God's existence, but to always occupy your heart and mind with behaving silly and talking flippancy.


Here, read again my repeated reminders to atheists on how not to engage in silly arguments which can also be reminders to not indulge in the heart and mind of flippancy:

#1. Know the proposition of your opponent.
#2. Formulate your opposing proposition.
#3. Insist on and achieve with your opponent common definition of terms.

I can see that you are transgressing all three reminders to not engage in silly arguments or in flippancy.


Anyway, what is your acquaintance with God at least the concept, in His fundamental relation to the universe, the one where we live in and are part and parcel of as also God is present in, immanent, but also transcendental to?




Gerry

Well, I can tell that phank's post was neither parody nor mockery. It was quite serious and actually correct. I suspect you considered it 'misdirection', because you were not interested in the truth value of the proposition you presented (that's why I refrained from discussing that). But I hardly think that phank deserves that attack from you, just because he did not understand that- frankly, I don't understand what that proposition had to do with our discussion myself.
Hopefully we can begin the actual discussion soon- At least on my part I have stated your position as well as my objection to it. If you think we have some problem in term definition, I'm sure we'll work it out in the discussion. All that is needed is good faith.

[gerry]

Dear Faid, phank has not answered to my request to him to tell me what is his acquaintance with God in regard to the concept of.

Anyway, let phank pass.

He does accept what I have presented to him to be the criteria of serious exchange of thoughts.

And he thinks that by insisting that he is into a logical discourse he can do away with the three criteria, and he thinks or even insists that religious discourse is not logical discourse.

So, let phank pass.

--------------------


About your point in your expatiation on the kinds of negatives, what are you trying to react to exactly in my my post (#130), where you first went into an expatiation of the kinds of negatives.

I like to know where this proposition should go to in your three kinds of negatives where in each your example is dragon(s),

"God cannot be proven to exist in the universe."

Because my proposition in that said post is to the effect that:

"God can be proven to exist in the universe."

I like to get people to engage seriously by always attending to these three criteria of a serious exchange of thoughts:

#1. Know the proposition of your opponent.
#2. Formulate your opposing proposition.
#3. Insist on and achieve with your opponent mutually agreed on definitions of terms.

Otherwise people can write so many many many words and just talk past each other's head and both feel that they are saying relevant things when both know that they are not getting any connection, but they love it that way.

Why? Namely, why they love it that way?


By the way, were you misled by the word, universe, in my said post where you first started your expatiation on the kinds of negatives where one kind is the universal negative.

What do you say, is that why you started your expatiation on the kinds of negatives, one kind of which is the universal negative?


Perhaps, finally, I might be getting to know why you are into this expatiation of the kinds of negatives.




Gerry

[phank]

Dear Faid, phank has not answered to my request to him to tell me what is his acquaintance with God in regard to the concept of.

Allow me to point out that this thread is dedicated to a discussion of the mechanisms of evolution. It is not a religious thread.

Anyway, let phank pass.

He does accept what I have presented to him to be the criteria of serious exchange of thoughts.

Insofar as you asked a logical question, and got a logical answer.

And he thinks that by insisting that he is into a logical discourse he can do away with the three criteria, and he thinks or even insists that religious discourse is not logical discourse.

I never said that. You asked a logical question, and I gave a logical answer. This thread is about the mechanisms of evolution.

About your point in your expatiation on the kinds of negatives, what are you trying to react to exactly in my my post (#130), where you first went into an expatiation of the kinds of negatives.

I like to know where this proposition should go to in your three kinds of negatives where in each your example is dragon(s),

"God cannot be proven to exist in the universe."

Because my proposition in that said post is to the effect that:

"God can be proven to exist in the universe."

These are essentially the same. Saying X can't be proved and saying X can NOT be proved can both be answered by producing an instance of X, showing that it can be proved. But for this to work, X has to be instantiable, so that an instance can be provided or demonstrated.

I like to get people to engage seriously by always attending to these three criteria of a serious exchange of thoughts:

#1. Know the proposition of your opponent.

You provided a logical proposition here. You asked whether it could be proved. I showed that it could.

#2. Formulate your opposing proposition.

There isn't necessarily an "opposing proposition" to a question. If I ask how old you are, you are not "opposing" me if you tell me.

#3. Insist on and achieve with your opponent mutually agreed on definitions of terms.

If we disagreed on terms, I don't see it. Can you explain in more detail?

Otherwise people can write so many many many words and just talk past each other's head and both feel that they are saying relevant things when both know that they are not getting any connection, but they love it that way.

Usually, talking past one another is frustrating for both parties.

Why? Namely, why they love it that way?

I don't know if anyone loves the inability to communicate when both are sincerely trying.

Perhaps, finally, I might be getting to know why you are into this expatiation of the kinds of negatives.

I share this curiosity. This is supposed to be a thread about the mechanisms of evolution. The number of different kinds of negatives, how they are formulated, bounded, and defined is of course a fascinating topic. You might consider starting a thread dedicated to this issue.

[gerry]

Allow me to point out that this thread is dedicated to a discussion of the mechanisms of evolution. It is not a religious thread.

[...]

This is supposed to be a thread about the mechanisms of evolution.

[...]

Let phank pass.



As for Faid, the man is of age and articulate, he can speak for himself.

Can't see why it is logical for phank to speak for Faid.





I will just share this with readers who might be interested to know how to judge the words of people in their exchange of thoughts:

#1. Know the proposition of your opponent.
#2. Formulate your opposing proposition.
#3. Insist on and achieve with your opponent mutually agreed on definitions of terms.

When words are so many that the issue gets so messed up, require both sides you as readers that they agree on one specific delimited question, then you readers get to see whether both sides are into the preliminary three criteria.

If a side does not want to even come to #1 or #2, flee from such a one like the plague.


This is the way to a terrific enjoyable experience, the dissection of how a person thinks and speaks, to see whether he is into silliness or into constructive and profitable discourse, profitable of course to you the readers who are investing time and concentration on his words.

-----------------


In regard to arguments pro and anti the theory of evolution, from stock knowledge the gist of the theory is that:

1. Random mutation leads to
2. Natural selection,
3. Voila, new species of life

My point is that the randomness factor eviscerates totally the whole substance of the theory, period.

So, dear readers, you want to dissect the theory of evolution, pick on this randomness factor, and subject it to the three criteria of a serious exchange of thoughts.

#1. Know the proposition of the proponent.
#2. Formulate or know also the opposing proposition of the opponent.
#3. Get them to insist on and achieve mutually agreed on definitions of terms.

Have you noticed, dear readers, that when you read a bit further, on the exposition by the proponents of the theory of evolution, you will come to the accusation by the proponents that the opponents don't know what the theory is all about.

So, that is the time for you the readers to give the proponents the idea that they must choose an item in the theory for a proposition to which the opponents will agree to keep to, like for example the randomness factor, and observe the three criteria of non-silly discourse, otherwise they are just wasting your time and your concentration.




Gerry

[phank]

Let phank pass.



As for Faid, the man is of age and articulate, he can speak for himself.

Can't see why it is logical for phank to speak for Faid.

I'm speaking for myself. This isn't a dedicated two-person discussion.

In regard to arguments pro and anti the theory of evolution, from stock knowledge the gist of the theory is that:

1. Random mutation leads to
2. Natural selection,
3. Voila, new species of life

If you read through this thread, you will find detailed discussions of this process.

My point is that the randomness factor eviscerates totally the whole substance of the theory, period.

Then do you consider it possible that you might, just maybe, not fully understand the theory? By "random mutations", what is MEANT is that mutations, taken as a whole, do not correlate with advantage. Most are either neutral or harmful. But the harmful mutations are not passed to future generations. What you presented here, as well as I can understand it, is
1) Mutations happen
2) Selection preserves the advantageous ones, and rejects the bad ones
3) So LET'S TOTALLY IGNORE SELECTION, claim that randomness ALONE is involved, and reject this misrepresentation of the theory

So, dear readers, you want to dissect the theory of evolution, pick on this randomness factor, and subject it to the three criteria of a serious exchange of thoughts.

Good idea.

#1. Know the proposition of the proponent.

The proposition of your opponent is that selection happens, and acts to conserve beneficial mutations and reject harmful mutations. This part of evolutionary theory is called RM+NS, which means "random mutation plus natural selection". The theory is NOT RM alone. If that were true, you would be correct. But your opponent proposed SELECTION. You should at least recognize this, and make an attempt to understand what it means.

#2. Formulate or know also the opposing proposition of the opponent.

Good idea. Your opponent likens RM+NS to a buffet of all kinds of stuff, and NS as the customer picking out what's edible (which might be very little), while the rest is forever sent to the landfill.

#3. Get them to insist on and achieve mutually agreed on definitions of terms.

Again, good idea. What is YOUR idea of selection?

Have you noticed, dear readers, that when you read a bit further, on the exposition by the proponents of the theory of evolution, you will come to the accusation by the proponents that the opponents don't know what the theory is all about.

Would it help if I pointed out that you keep omitting the power of selection from your presentation? Yet selection is absolutely crucial to the theory. If you do not understand what it is, what it means, how it works, then your knowledge is incomplete.

So, that is the time for you the readers to give the proponents the idea that they must choose an item in the theory for a proposition to which the opponents will agree to keep to, like for example the randomness factor, and observe the three criteria of non-silly discourse, otherwise they are just wasting your time and your concentration.

The randomness factor is very important to the theory, and not just because if there were no random mutation, there would be no variation for selection to select from. But beyond this, randomness means there is a VERY LARGE scope for variation, which means a very wide variety of variation. Given the very wide range of environmental niches, and the very wide variety of ways organisms make a living, this places very loose limits on the sort of variation that can occur, and provides lots of ways that random mutations might be put to use.

Remember that evolution is opportunistic. It takes advantage of whatever works, with no constraints as to HOW it works, or what use it's put to.As a very simple example, earlier I wrote of a successful species becoming parent to two new species, one smaller and one larger. I asked, if small is good, is large bad? No, each variation has its own advantages and disadvantages. So these two new species will adopt lifestyles appropriate to their size - and NEITHER will be the lifestyle of the parent. And of course, size is just one of countless variations random mutation might produce - many of which might confer SOME advantage. And if it does, that variation will be selected, and passed along to future generations.

I sincerely hope your rules of discourse permit discussion of the actual theory, and not just half of it. Either half without the other is useless.

[Tiggy]

In regard to arguments pro and anti the theory of evolution, from stock knowledge the gist of the theory is that:

1. Random mutation leads to
2. Natural selection,
3. Voila, new species of life

That's a rather cartoonish oversimplification, but whatever.

My point is that the randomness factor eviscerates totally the whole substance of the theory, period.

Random of course means random with respect to their effect on evolutionary fitness. Maybe if you gave some reasons why you think the randomness factor is a problem instead of just asserting it you could have a discussion.

So, dear readers, you want to dissect the theory of evolution, pick on this randomness factor, and subject it to the three criteria of a serious exchange of thoughts.

#1. Know the proposition of the proponent.
#2. Formulate or know also the opposing proposition of the opponent.
#3. Get them to insist on and achieve mutually agreed on definitions of terms.

OK. When will you be attempting nos. 1 and 2?

Have you noticed, dear readers, that when you read a bit further, on the exposition by the proponents of the theory of evolution, you will come to the accusation by the proponents that the opponents don't know what the theory is all about.

So, that is the time for you the readers to give the proponents the idea that they must choose an item in the theory for a proposition to which the opponents will agree to keep to, like for example the randomness factor, and observe the three criteria of non-silly discourse, otherwise they are just wasting your time and your concentration.

OK, demonstrate that you understand actual evolutionary theory and not just some Creationist goofy cartoon version of it. We'll wait.

- T

[gerry]

[...]

Okay, phank, let us start from a clean slate.


You want to discuss the randomness factor in the theory of evolution.

You have a propositon about the randomness factor?

Put it in your next post.



Gerry

[Tiggy]

Okay, phank, let us start from a clean slate.


You want to discuss the randomness factor in the theory of evolution.

You have a propositon about the randomness factor?

Put it in your next post.


Gerry

Why, specifically, do you think the randomness factor is a problem?

- T

[gerry]

That's a rather cartoonish oversimplification, but whatever.



Random of course means random with respect to their effect on evolutionary fitness. Maybe if you gave some reasons why you think the randomness factor is a problem instead of just asserting it you could have a discussion.



OK. When will you be attempting nos. 1 and 2?



OK, demonstrate that you understand actual evolutionary theory and not just some Creationist goofy cartoon version of it. We'll wait.

- T

Okay, since the word random as in random mutation figures a lot almost essentially in the theory of evolution, the proponents must be the ones to present their proposition on the matter of random mutation, in particular concentrate first on what is their meaning of random, then on the term random mutation.

It is often the case that people use a term but in their most modified meaning so that when you understand the term as it is commonly understood they tell you you don't know what is for example random.

Take this word nothing, a lot of atheist cosmologists are insisting that the universe where we live in and are part and parcel of came from nothing, but when you ask them to explain what is nothing as in their statement that the universe came from nothing, you will laugh because it ain't nothing except for themselves.

How can these guys be so naive, disingenuous, and oh so presumptuous, as to play tricks on themselves and expect people to play the same tricks on themselves as they do themselves on themselves (and think they can get away with it).


Okay, evolutionists are the ones using the term random mutation, they should be the ones to formulate their proposition first on what is random, period.

Afterwards when we have arrived at the mutually agreed on definition of what is random, we will proceed to discuss what should be the mutually agreed on meaning of random mutation.




Gerry

[Tiggy]

Okay, since the word random as in random mutation figures a lot almost essentially in the theory of evolution, the proponents must be the ones to present their proposition on the matter of random mutation, in particular concentrate first on what is their meaning of random, then on the term random mutation.

It is often the case that people use a term but in their most modified meaning so that when you understand the term as it is commonly understood they tell you you don't know what is for example random.

Take this word nothing, a lot of atheist cosmologists are insisting that the universe where we live in and are part and parcel of came from nothing, but when you ask them to explain what is nothing as in their statement that the universe came from nothing, you will laugh because it ain't nothing except for themselves.

How can these guys be so naive, disingenuous, and oh so presumptuous, as to play tricks on themselves and expect people to play the same tricks on themselves as they do themselves on themselves (and think they can get away with it).


Okay, evolutionists are the ones using the term random mutation, they should be the ones to formulate their proposition first on what is random, period.

Afterwards when we have arrived at the mutually agreed on definition of what is random, we will proceed to discuss what should be the mutually agreed on meaning of random mutation.

Gerry

I already told you, random means random with respect to the effects on evolutionary fitness.

You typed lots of words, but you forgot to tell us why you think the randomness factor is a problem.

Please try again.

- T

[gerry]

You ask,

Gerry

Why, specifically, do you think the randomness factor is a problem?

I will tell you why as soon as you explain what you understand by the word random, remember you evolutionists are the ones using that word random in your theory of evolution; that word is so important that if there were no such word and concept random, you would not have any theory of evolution.

So, you are the ones to explain what you mean by random, then random mutation.


The one using a term must be the one to explain the meaning of the term to people asking, you cannot just tell people to go to their dictionaries, because in this situation you are the dictionary of the word you use.


If you will not explain to them what you understand by the word in this case random that means you have no business using that word.

You the user of a word must explain it to your listeners or readers, then if they disagree with you, and and they and I, we can all go to the dictionaries.


But at the end of the day, you might insist that for your purpose the word for example random means this or that which is not at all in the dictionaries, then you must contrive a new word to represent your concept whatever, but don't use a word already known to people and defined in dictionaries to represent your own alien concept not one of the definitions of the word people know and also defined in dictionaries.




Gerry

[gerry]

I already told you, random means random with respect to the effects on evolutionary fitness.

You typed lots of words, but you forgot to tell us why you think the randomness factor is a problem.

Please try again.

- T

You don't define a word by using the same word in your definition.


Try again.



Gerry

[Tiggy]

You ask,

Gerry

Why, specifically, do you think the randomness factor is a problem?

I will tell you why as soon as you explain what you understand by the word random, remember you evolutionists are the ones using that word random in your theory of evolution; that word is so important that if there were no such word and concept random, you would not have any theory of evolution.

So, you are the ones to explain what you mean by random, then random mutation.

The one using a term must be the one to explain the meaning of the term to people asking, you cannot just tell people to go to their dictionaries, because in this situation you are the dictionary of the word you use.

If you will not explain to them what you understand by the word in this case random that means you have no business using that word.

You the user of a word must explain it to your listeners or readers, then if they disagree with you, and and they and I, we can all go to the dictionaries.


But at the end of the day, you might insist that for your purpose the word for example random means this or that which is not at all in the dictionaries, then you must contrive a new word to represent your concept whatever, but don't use a word already known to people and defined in dictionaries to represent your own alien concept not one of the definitions of the word people know and also defined in dictionaries.

Gerry

What part of

"random means random with respect to the effects on evolutionary fitness."

don't you understand?

You also are very unclear on the concept of a discussion. You made this claim

My point is that the randomness factor eviscerates totally the whole substance of the theory, period.

The onus is on you to support it. If all you want to do is play dumb semantic games you need to go back to Apologetics.

- T

[Tiggy]

You don't define a word by using the same word in your definition.

Try again.

Gerry

Ah, I see. You don't want to defend your rather cartoonish and silly claims, you're just a Creationist out for an evening troll.

Got it.

- T

[rogue06]

Okay, evolutionists are the ones using the term random mutation, they should be the ones to formulate their proposition first on what is random, period.

I think the explanation provided by Kenneth Miller, a Christian and biology professor at Brown University, is an excellent starting point:

Only A Theory; p.140

We might begin by asking what is really meant by “random.” One might say that “anything” can happen in a random event, but this is not really true. For example, most people would quickly agree that the winner of tonight's state lottery drawing will be picked “at random,” but that's not the same thing as saying that anyone can win. I know for certain, for example, that I'm not going to win—because I haven't bought a ticket. The winner may be drawn “randomly,” but in this case that means picked from a well-defined population (the ticket holders) and not from all possible individuals who might be happy to receive a prize. So, if we can indeed apply the word “random” to a lottery pick, it means that we can surely use it to refer to an unpredictable outcome chosen from a limited number of possibilities.

...

Although we often speak of mutations, changes in the genetic material, as being “random,” that does not mean that all conceivable changes are equally possible or equally likely. The range of genetic changes is limited by the chemistry of DNA itself.

...

Like tonight's lottery pick, it would be more accurate therefore to describe the nature of genetic change as “unpredictable” instead of “random.


Source

© source where applicable

Sorry for chopping it up but Theologyweb has rather strict rules concerning copyrighted works and how much can be quoted. Still I think this should suffice to get the ball rolling.