Great New AronRa video, Evolution is a fact

[phank]

Where is the lie? What did I say in my second post, my third post, my fourth post, etc... I have been speaking of specific outcomes - how many times have I asked did we have to turn out this way, how early on? How many times did I reference the beetle example, how early on. I have not moved the goal posts. You are deceitful HMS.

Let's be less inflammatory here. AaonRa was NOT talking about specific outcomes, he was talking about a PROCESS. That process produces a pattern of adaptation. A pattern of adaptation is not pure chance, and it is not pure design. It is a combination of the two, which produces results ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from either pure chance or pure design. So we can say that we have three sorts of processes that produce three different kinds of results.

You have for some reason (that you refuse to divulge) changed "pattern of results" to "specific results". But that's not what was being presented. You changed the subject.

[HMS_Beagle]

Where is the lie? What did I say in my second post, my third post, my fourth post, etc... I have been speaking of specific outcomes - how many times have I asked did we have to turn out this way, how early on? How many times did I reference the beetle example, how early on. I have not moved the goal posts. You are deceitful HMS.

Let's see. Here's your first post on the topic:

I don't get it, this guy said there are not only two choices - randomness or design. He does agree that mutations are random, and since mutations create the novelty for selection to save I don't see how this is anything but random. So I don't see what this third option is.

Arguing for "all chance"

Here's your second post on the topic:

But are not the environments themselves the result of chance events? And isn't it a chance event that an organism happens to find itself in an environment that selects a specific beneficial mutation? I mean it is possible for a mutation or mutations to have a positive effect in one environment and a negative effect in another environment. So that would be chance also - correct?

Still arguing the same thing, "all chance".

Here's your third post on the topic:

But some one, intelligence, actually designed the options.

True, but it still all random. The mutations that create novelty, and the environment they happen to find themselves. If natural selection is the thing that removes randomness as AronRa suggested then that depends on the environment the creature happens to find itself in -and that too is chance. Then kick it back one step and ask did we have to have these kind of environments in the first place or any life supporting Eco-systems? That too was chance - it is chance all the way down.

No, I intelligently chose from different options.

Still arguing the same thing, "all chance".

Here's your fourth post on the topic:

But why certain mutations take or don't take is random because of the environment they by chance find themselves in. And the environment that drives natural selection is to there by chance so:

1. Mutations are random.

2. The creature is in a particular ecological niche by chance.

3. The ecological niche itself that drives selection is also there by chance.

Chance is behind the whole system.

Still arguing the same thing, "all chance".

Do I need to continue?

Now that your lie has been exposed what's your next step?

[seer]

Let's see. Here's your first post on the topic:



Arguing for "all chance"

Here's your second post on the topic:



Still arguing the same thing, "all chance".

Here's your third post on the topic:



Still arguing the same thing, "all chance".

Here's your fourth post on the topic:



Still arguing the same thing, "all chance".

Do I need to continue?

Now that your lie has been exposed what's your next step?

We yes, that is the point idiot. Chance. The mutations and the niche the creature just happens to find themselves in. Did they have to be in a particular niche?

[phank]

We yes, that is the point idiot. Chance. The mutations and the niche the creature just happens to find themselves in. Did they have to be in a particular niche?

Selection is not chance. Selection happens.

[seer]

Let's be less inflammatory here. AaonRa was NOT talking about specific outcomes, he was talking about a PROCESS. That process produces a pattern of adaptation. A pattern of adaptation is not pure chance, and it is not pure design. It is a combination of the two, which produces results ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from either pure chance or pure design. So we can say that we have three sorts of processes that produce three different kinds of results.

Good so you agree that specific outcomes are the result of chance. And I know what AaonRa and evolutionists say, but I'm saying that it is meaningless, because outcomes are all that matter, and outcomes are random for all the reasons I gave. A point phank you have agreed with a number of times.

You have for some reason (that you refuse to divulge) changed "pattern of results" to "specific results". But that's not what was being presented. You changed the subject.

Go back like 15 pages and see my first beetle example. I have been making the same claim all along.

[seer]

Selection is not chance. Selection happens.

What selection selects (outcome) is pure chance.

I mean how many times have I said or asked this:

Tell me phank did we have to turn out the way we did? Or was that luck? If we could have turned out differently or not survived at all - what is left but chance? So yes turning out the way we did is pure coincidence.

[phank]

What selection selects is pure chance.

So there IS a combination of selection and chance.

Again, you go into a cafeteria. You have the choice of any two dishes from a display of 20 dishes. Let's say you pick your favorite two. Was your selection "pure chance"? Does your selection come "more random" when you realize that the cafeteria didn't have to exist, and the 20 dishes could have been 1000 dishes, or entirely different? Or that you didn't need to exist either? How many such factors do you need to pile up before your selection of your two favorite dishes becomes "pure chance"?

[phank]

Good so you agree that specific outcomes are the result of chance. And I know what AaonRa and evolutionists say, but I'm saying that it is meaningless, because outcomes are all that matter, and outcomes are random for all the reasons I gave. A point phank you have agreed with a number of times.

Outcomes follow a pattern. They do so for actual reasons. Patterns are not random.

Go back like 15 pages and see my first beetle example. I have been making the same claim all along.

And your claim has deliberately ignored the central point every single time. If you WILL not learn, do you wonder those trying to inform you get disgusted with you?

[seer]

So there IS a combination of selection and chance.

Again, you go into a cafeteria. You have the choice of any two dishes from a display of 20 dishes. Let's say you pick your favorite two. Was your selection "pure chance"? Does your selection come "more random" when you realize that the cafeteria didn't have to exist, and the 20 dishes could have been 1000 dishes, or entirely different? Or that you didn't need to exist either? How many such factors do you need to pile up before your selection of your two favorite dishes becomes "pure chance"?

More bad analogies, again:

Tell me phank did we have to turn out the way we did? Or was that luck? If we could have turned out differently or not survived at all - what is left but chance? So yes turning out the way we did is pure coincidence.

[phank]

More bad analogies, again:

Is there anyone else here who is able to THINK? I hereby classify seer as Jorge jr.

[seer]

Is there anyone else here who is able to THINK? I hereby classify seer as Jorge jr.

Again phank did we have to turn out the way we did? Or was that luck?

[phank]

Selection is not chance.

[Jorge]

Is there anyone else here who is able to THINK?

Phankestein is clearly implying that HE is able to think.
Classify that under the heading of "Severely Delusional".

I hereby classify seer as Jorge jr.

Awww ... what a nice compliment you've paid seer.
See, even Phankestein is capable of being nice.

Jorge

[seer]

Selection is not chance.

So we had to turn out this way?

[phank]

So we had to turn out this way?

You are asking the wrong question, and nobody can figure out why.

Let's try again. Can we predict the outcome of a baseball game? No, we can't. No two games will ever be alike. Does this mean baseball is played at random, without any rules? THIS is the relevant question. Asking over and over and over for page after page after page if any baseball game HAD to turn out the way it did, and if not then baseball has no rules, is both dishonest and stupid.