Raving Atheists Forum

Raving Atheists Forum (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/index.php)
-   Sciences (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   100 Refutations To Misconceptions About Evolution (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11009)

Sternwallow 08-26-2006 08:26 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.

A Random Process is an antisensical oxymoronical nothing.
pro indicates that there is a direction involved.
And a direction makes it nonrandom.

Is a process (simple machine) that takes in a random mix of minerals and filters them to produce only onyx an oxymoronical nothing? Does it have intentions? Do you claim that the input is not random for some reason?

There are two processes activities in evolution, genetic variation caused by mutation and probabilistic winnowing by the environment of those less able to reproduce through the simple fact of their low reproduction. There is abundant randomness and a powerful organizing effect to produce slightly modified populations.
If the environment changes too much or too fast for the possible variation in the population, they all die. It does not take many generations, under environment pressure for a population to change well beyond the original limits of its variablilty.

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 08:35 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

It is a fight over semantics!

And it's a fight worth fighting!

Sane terms make for easy teaching and fruitful thinking. (Insane terms hamper both. And are doing so !)

It is an endeavour to aid teaching and fruitful thinking.

It's about challenging people's unthinking adoption of unhelpful names for scientific concepts.
And there is great value in challenging that!
Freethinking rules okay!

Tenspace 08-26-2006 08:41 AM

Now that you've made a couple of posts since I called you out on the Darwin variation/natural selection deal, I want to point out that you haven't responded to a very important point: you absolutely misunderstood what Darwin said.

Pan, I ask, before we continue with anything else, that you address this post.

(edit: in other words, I won't let you take the "Christian Way Out" by being selective as to what posts to answer)

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 08:42 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

Oh, and how was I wrong about the concept of evolution?

... the concept of natural selection ... ( this is what you and I have been discussing, no? :D )
... wrong according to Darwin ...

... and we have discussed this both already ...
... okay? are we clear at least on that ?! :D

We will be once you respond to my post showing how you misunderstood Darwin's words, making you the one who is wrong, not me.

Edit: It's this post, just in case you missed it.

I'll agree that we differ on that! And let it pass!

Tenspace 08-26-2006 08:43 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
... the concept of natural selection ... ( this is what you and I have been discussing, no? :D )
... wrong according to Darwin ...

... and we have discussed this both already ...
... okay? are we clear at least on that ?! :D

We will be once you respond to my post showing how you misunderstood Darwin's words, making you the one who is wrong, not me.

Edit: It's this post, just in case you missed it.

I'll agree that we differ on that! And let it pass!

Not good enough. It's not that we differ, it is that you are misunderstanding one of the cornerstones of evolution. How can we continue if we aren't even on the same page about the underyling mechanism of natural selection?

PanAtheist 08-26-2006 08:43 AM

Huh!
A Very Funny Moment of "Cross-Posting" just occurred! :D

Tenspace 08-26-2006 08:44 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Huh!
A Very Funny Moment of "Cross-Posting" just occurred! :D

:lol:

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that! :D

myst7426 08-26-2006 09:09 AM

Stop ignoring us Andy! http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewt...151143#p151143

FishFace 08-26-2006 09:45 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote
Quote:

Tenspace wrote
Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.

A Random Process is an antisensical oxymoronical nothing.
pro indicates that there is a direction involved.
And a direction makes it nonrandom.

Process does not necessarily imply direction; it depends on context.

process –noun
1. a systematic series of actions directed to some end: to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
2. a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner: the process of decay.

Number one has intention, number two does not. The process of decay is not intentional, but it is still a process.
Thank you.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000-2013, Raving Atheists [dot] com. All rights reserved.