Great New AronRa video, Evolution is a fact

[klaus54]

Why is this important to you, seer?

K54

[shunyadragon]

So we got lucky, thanks...

More then 200 posts, seer, it has been years at Tweb, Still waiting . . .

Still did not answer the questions???

I realize that, but you did not answer the questions in my previous post. Why are you arguing this line of reasoning, and for what purpose?

It is a given that humans did not have to develop the way we did just as the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon on the Fourth of July from the neutral scientific perspective.

What you are arguing is the necessity of a Theistic perspective that we exist, because God Created us as we are, but beyond this it only has relevance to the theist. I believe God Created our physical existence, and humanity evolved always with the intent that humans exist, but that is a theist perspective. I am fully aware that this represents a Theistic 'belief' on my part. I believe in Methodological Naturalism as simply the neutral scientific human perspective of the natural methods of Creation.

Flogging a dead horse for years does not achieve anything, and ah . . . it gets to be a rather smelly affair.

[seer]

And after about 200 efforts to explain, seer repeats his initial foregone conclusion and is satisfied. This is your brain on religion.

But phank you already agreed with me a number of times that specific outcomes were chance results. So why say the above.

[JonF]

You need to specify what outcome you mean. You're equivocating over different types of outcomes.

The fate of species is not just a chance outcome (chance is involved but that's not all), although the fate of an individual in that species is somewhat more chance (how well it fits the probability distribution imposed by the environment matters and is not chance, but it might get killed by a crazed postal worker by chance) .

Just as the overall outcome of a million spins of a roulette wheel is predictable with great precision even though the outcome on one spin is purely chance and cannot be predicted. One spin is analogous to one individual, a million spins is analogous to a species.

Are you speaking of the outcome for an individual or for a species? Both are not purely chance, but we can analyze the statistics of the latter and not the former.

[Roy]

Are you speaking of the outcome for an individual or for a species? Both are not purely chance, but we can analyze the statistics of the latter and not the former.

He's speaking for whatever will get him the answer he wants, and will apply that answer to whatever he wants to regardless of the answerer's intent.

Roy

[klaus54]

For the life of me, I don't get seer's point.

Who cares?

It's unimportant scientifically and theologically.

K54

[phank]

But phank you already agreed with me a number of times that specific outcomes were chance results. So why say the above.

Well, I'll waste a couple more minutes. Specific outcomes are PARTIALLY chance, and partially selection. You have repeatedly taken the position that anything that has ANY chance involved, has NOTHING BUT chance involved. This is simply wrong.

[shunyadragon]

Tired of complaining that seer is ignoring you?

No, I just want to keep his true motives in his face.

[phank]

No, I just want to keep his true motives in his face.

Well, it's obvious to everyone that
1) His motives are entirely religious
2) He is not honest enough to admit it
3) But his being impervious to all facts advertises it unambiguously.

[Method]

No, I said the outcomes were chance, even with selection. There are just to many environmental variabilities for the outcomes not to be chance driven.

A better description is that each outcome for each individual organism is probabilistic or stochastic. Beneficial mutations increase the probability that an organism will have descendants. When averaged over many, many individuals you get a predictable outcome. The same applies for the dice in craps. It is difficult to predict the outcome of a single roll, but you can easily predict that 7 will be the most common outcome over 1 million rolls. You could also use the double slit experiment where you can't predict the path of an individual photon, but you can predict the wave pattern of many photons.

[Jorge]

He's speaking for whatever will get him the answer he wants, and will apply that answer to whatever he wants to regardless of the answerer's intent.

Roy

"Jorge: the DIRECT implications of the fundamental Evolutionary Principle of "survival of the fittest" may be, has been and will continue to be used as "scientific" justification for ... homosexual practices"

Before I am forced to go to the Mods, I am asking that you remove the above instance of dishonest misrepresentation achieved by taking something out of its full context. It appears that the ONLY way that you people can attain some measure of "victory" is through dishonest practices.

Now, if you use the ENTIRE post in which the above was contained then you may do so.

You have your ONE warning.

Jorge

[phank]

A better description is that each outcome for each individual organism is probabilistic or stochastic. Beneficial mutations increase the probability that an organism will have descendants. When averaged over many, many individuals you get a predictable outcome. The same applies for the dice in craps. It is difficult to predict the outcome of a single roll, but you can easily predict that 7 will be the most common outcome over 1 million rolls. You could also use the double slit experiment where you can't predict the path of an individual photon, but you can predict the wave pattern of many photons.

Problem is, quite a few people have said this quite a few times, using sometimes exactly the same words and illustrations. They are both correct and ignored (and clearly ignored BECAUSE they are correct).

[HMS_Beagle]

"Jorge: the DIRECT implications of the fundamental Evolutionary Principle of "survival of the fittest" may be, has been and will continue to be used as "scientific" justification for ... homosexual practices"

Before I am forced to go to the Mods, I am asking that you remove the above instance of dishonest misrepresentation achieved by taking something out of its full context. It appears that the ONLY way that you people can attain some measure of "victory" is through dishonest practices.

Now, if you use the ENTIRE post in which the above was contained then you may do so.

You have your ONE warning.

Jorge

Hilarious to see the most dishonest quote-mining YEC on TWeb whining about having his words taken out of context.

They're your words Jorge. You wrote them. The context of the rest of the post doesn't change the meaning.

[Roy]

"Jorge: the DIRECT implications of the fundamental Evolutionary Principle of "survival of the fittest" may be, has been and will continue to be used as "scientific" justification for ... homosexual practices"

Before I am forced to go to the Mods, I am asking that you remove the above instance of dishonest misrepresentation achieved by taking something out of its full context.

There was no fuller context that made the above words any less stupid than they appear here.

You have your ONE warning.

Go stick your head in a pig.

Roy

[seer]

A better description is that each outcome for each individual organism is probabilistic or stochastic. Beneficial mutations increase the probability that an organism will have descendants. When averaged over many, many individuals you get a predictable outcome.

Or a very valid description would be that we just got lucky. Certain random mutation, just happened to be beneficial, because of the environment we happened to find ourselves in. And I'm not sure what you mean by predictable outcome. You mean you can predict how a species will develop over the next million years or that it will even survive? What are you predicting?