Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[seer]

It is clear and specific by definition that the outcome of evolution is predictable based on the Laws of Nature and the environment. Only the outcome of an individual event in evolution such as one mutation can be considered random.

You are avoiding again Shuny, there is no evidence that human beings were determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all. There is no scientific evidence that the laws of nature determined that bio-genesis would happen on this earth. Random.

[shunyadragon]

You are fibbing again Shuny, I am not arguing in a circle, but you will not answer a straight question, again: were human beings determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all? Yes or no?

Let's clarify your misuse of randomness. Yes, I described it in terms of one event being random, but let's take a look at how the definition applies to a series of events.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events.[1] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

© Copyright Original Source

It is clear and specific by definition that the outcome of evolution is predictable based on the Laws of Nature and the environment. Only the outcome of an individual event in evolution such as one mutation can be considered random.

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

Science only can test the fact that evolution is repeatably predictable throughout the millennia, billions of years, up until the present without random outcomes. Arguing that the the outcome could be different is hypothetical, and beyond the ability of science and crystal balls. Based on the outcomes, we have no reason to believe that there is a wide variation of the outcomes, or for that matter any variation in the outcomes.

[seer]

Again, again and again . . .

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

You are fibbing again Shuny, I am not arguing in a circle, but you will not answer a straight question, again: were human beings determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all? Yes or no?

[shunyadragon]

I will ask again Shuny, were human beings determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all? Yes or no?

Again, again and again . . .

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

[seer]

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

I will ask again Shuny, were human beings determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all? Yes or no?

[shunyadragon]

So human beings were determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all?

Seer your arguing in circles from a perspective that you deny evolution completely as science that has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Your arguments are couched in an 'argument from ignorance' as to what your assertion is 'what has to take place.' Your misusing the concept of randomness to justify your agenda, and not remotely trying to understand science.

What the science of evolution has demonstrate is that evolution did takes place of billions of years, and the result is the human species. The science has demonstrated that after extinction events, very very morphological similar species arise again given the same environment, demonstrated that the Laws of Nature, and the environment are the overwhelming cause of the outcome of evolution for a time.

[seer]

No I did not.

So human beings were determined by the laws of nature to evolve as we did or evolve at all?

[Tassman]

What are you talking about? You agree that man did not have to evolve as we did or all. So that means randomness was involved, it was not deterministic.

For the umpteenth time, hominids (and all life forms) are naturally occurring evolutionary responses to a suitable environment. They (we) did not "have" to evolve at all.

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about? You agree that man did not have to evolve as we did or all. So that means randomness was involved, it was not deterministic.

No I did not.

If we were not determined by that laws of nature to develop as we did then there was randomness involved. It could have been otherwise.

Answer is BO. You are misquoting. Randomness is only involve in an event, and does not determine anything beyond the event where the outcome is constrained by the Laws of Nature. This true of virtually everything. The outcome of one roll of dis may be considered random, but the outcome of the rolls of dice are constrained by their physical nature and the Laws of Nature. Randomness plays no determining roll in evolution, other than simple the outcome of one event constrained by the Laws of Nature and the environment.

[seer]

No, we are not an individual outcome. An individual out come would be one genetic mutation constrained by the Laws of Nature.

What are you talking about? You agree that man did not have to evolve as we did or all. So that means randomness was involved, it was not deterministic.

No, you are injecting a 'have to' here, which has no meaning concerning the reality of evolution in response to a changing environment.

If we were not determined by that laws of nature to develop as we did then there was randomness involved. It could have been otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

Wait, you just admitted that individual outcomes are random. And we are an individual outcome.

No, we are not an individual outcome. An individual out come would be one genetic mutation constrained by the Laws of Nature.

You already agreed that we did not have to evolve as we did or evolve at all.

No, you are injecting a 'have to' here, which has no meaning concerning the reality of evolution in response to a changing environment.

[Tassman]

But that doesn't change the random outcomes. We are a random outcome.

No, we are the naturally occurring evolutionary response to a suitable environment.

That is false Shuny, first we have no idea how or why life started on this earth. Second, there is noting in the laws of nature that determined that life would actually begin on this earth. Chance...

[seer]

No we are not. We are the outcome of the Laws of Nature and the environment based on the objective verifiable evidence. Your view is based on religious assumptions with no evidence.

Wait, you just admitted that individual outcomes are random. And we are an individual outcome. You already agreed that we did not have to evolve as we did or evolve at all.

[shunyadragon]

But that doesn't change the random outcomes. We are a random outcome.

No we are not. We are the outcome of the Laws of Nature and the environment based on the objective verifiable evidence. Your view is based on religious assumptions with no evidence.

[seer]

. . . but the outcomes are constrained by the Laws of Nature, and the natural environment.

But that doesn't change the random outcomes. We are a random outcome.

Again, all your assumptions are an illusion of delusions based on a religious agenda, and have no relevant meaning in the science of evolution.

Given the Laws of Nature, and a suitable environment for life there is no reason to believe abiogenesis and evolution will not take place.

Your argument is based on the perpetual motion machine of arguing from ignorance. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you reject science in favor of fundamentalist religious agenda. There is not much in the way of constructive dialogue can take place.

That is false Shuny, first we have no idea how or why life started on this earth. Second, there is noting in the laws of nature that determined that life would actually begin on this earth. Chance...