Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by boonon
You are right, I most definitely do not understand the science because I have never studied it.

I do however have a firm grasp of the English language.

These are a few of many like statements from your links:

‘The RNA world hypothesis proposes’

‘under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth’

‘We don't know if these chemical steps d, at least semi-experts. They do not sound to me that they are convinced of anything either.

These are a few of many like statements from your links:

‘The RNA world hypothesis proposes’

‘under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth’

‘We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened’

you just cherry-pick the bits that contain words such as “ proposes”, “might”, “don't know” etc as a desperate attempt to delude yourself that it is ALL just PURE speculation.
The science of it clearly says there ARE definite facts we can say about it; I just listed a few in my last post. Do you dispute THOSE facts?
The scientists that make these statements are rightly very cautious about what they say ( if just one of the things they say proves wrong then they would have egg in their faces plus they may even have to deal with harsh criticism from other scientists ) hence words such as “possibly” etc but the fact remains they DO rationally know many things with good certainty.

Originally posted by humy

These are a few of many like statements from your links:

‘The RNA world hypothesis proposes’

‘under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth’

‘We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened’

you just cherry-pick the bits that contain words such as “ proposes”, “might”, “don't know” etc as ...[text shortened]... te facts we can say about it; I just listed a few in my last post. Do you dispute THOSE facts?

It is nothing but educated guesses with various speculations added to spice it up a bit in order to make it easier to swallow.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is nothing but educated guesses with various speculations added to spice it up a bit in order to make it easier to swallow.

-this is coming from a man that understands nothing about how science works.

Originally posted by humy
Neither of your two questions makes any sense:

If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?

evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain.....
I could explai ...[text shortened]... s an unintelligently bias selection for the better adapted to survive and pass on their genes.

Why can't you stick with biological systems? I think it is because you don't have the answers.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why can't you stick with biological systems? I think it is because you don't have the answers.

“Why can't” I “stick with biological systems“ in what respect?
“stick with biological systems“ for doing what?

I think it is because you don't have the answers.

the answers to which questions?
List them and I will answer them...

Originally posted by jaywill
Let me guess that you did not watch the entire video ? Its not mandatory. However, your comments indicate discussion you apparently didn't notice, which the video addresses.

I think you would be benefitted by watching the video in its entire length. I have searched and asked myself "Why wouldn't ANYONE not want to hear these findings ?"

[b] The Priviledged Planet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFaSBEXum5g[/b]

He thinks that would be a waste of his time. After all he is 70+ years old. And he has only got one life and he wants to make it count. For what? I do not know.

Originally posted by humy
“Why can't” I “stick with biological systems“ in what respect?
“stick with biological systems“ for doing what?

I think it is because you don't have the answers.

the answers to which questions?
List them and I will answer them...

I know the answers. But I did not ask the questions. I was just explaining why you don't answer. Instead, you deflect by using a strawman argument or question. I don't need to ask you any questions because you are in the dark.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I know the answers. But I did not ask the questions. I was just explaining why you don't answer. Instead, you deflect by using a strawman argument or question. I don't need to ask you any questions because you are in the dark.

I know the answers. But I did not ask the questions. I was just explaining why you don't answer.

😛

Well, I can explain myself why I do not answer THOSE questions: its because you didn't ask them and so I have absolutely no way of knowing what they are 😛

I asked you to list which questions you are referring to and you just refuse so should I take it no such questions in your mind actually exist?
How can I know that they exist in your mind if you refuse to ask them thus indicating you could just be making this up?

Originally posted by humy

These are a few of many like statements from your links:

‘The RNA world hypothesis proposes’

‘under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth’

‘We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened’

you just cherry-pick the bits that contain words such as “ proposes”, “might”, “don't know” etc as ...[text shortened]... s “possibly” etc but the fact remains they DO rationally know many things with good certainty.

I cherry picked nothing. Every article was full of speculation, full of it.

I did not make any of those up, and as I said they were only a few of them.

You can choose to believe that those stories are 'conclusive' or as you say ' lead to an inevitability' that they did or could happen, but I would argue that you are stretching those to fit a pre conceived idea that you already hold.

'good certainty' is fine, but don't expect me to trust a semi-experts opinion on something he says is fact and then professes it to be ' good certainty ' .

If you had said that from the start instead of telling me to ' trust the semi-expert' , I would admit more validity to your statement.

Originally posted by humy

I know the answers. But I did not ask the questions. I was just explaining why you don't answer.

😛

Well, I can explain myself why I do not answer THOSE questions: its because you didn't ask them and so I have absolutely no way of knowing what they are 😛

I asked you to list which questions you are referring to and you just refuse so ...[text shortened]... exist in your mind if you refuse to ask them thus indicating you could just be making this up?

These are the questions jaywill asked you:

1. If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?

2. What alternative can you suggest to phrase how natural selection accomplished this besides "pure chance" ?

Originally posted by RJHinds
These are the questions jaywill asked you:

1. If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?

2. What alternative can you suggest to phrase how natural selection accomplished this besides "pure chance" ?

These are the questions jaywill asked you:

firstly, you didn't say anything about jaywill asking them -how could I possibly know what you were talking about? I am not a mind reader and I don't do word-games.

Secondly, I have already answered them on the bottom of page 6 of this thread and your claim that I don't know the answers is clearly false.
Here is a reminder of my whole post complete with the answers:

Neither of your two questions makes any sense:
[quote]
If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?

evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain.....
I could explain how a current snow avalanche “arrived” ( started ) by describing how a vibration from, say, an earthquake, caused it to start; so that current avalanche must have a goal?

What alternative can you suggest to phrase how random selection accomplished this besides "pure chance" ?

what “random selection”? “random selection” is not part of the evolution theory and no random selection is need for the process. Natural selection is not a pure random process but is an unintelligently bias selection for the better adapted to survive and pass on their genes. [/quote]

note that I answered all his questions but he has yet to give any answers to my above questions -so I assume if anyone doesn't have the answers it is him ( and you ).
If you have the answers as you claim, perhaps you could enlighten us by answering my questions for him?

Thirdly, you said:

Why can't you stick with biological systems? I think it is because you don't have the answers.

this was in response to answering his questions that you now just listed as the ones I am supposed to, according to you now, not know the answers to. Would you say those questions were about “biological systems”? If not, then you cannot criticise me for not sticking “with biological systems” because you say the questions were not about “biological systems”. But if yes, then I answered the questions so -so what? I used a none-evolutionary process ( an avalanche ) as an analogy to the process of evolution to help reinforce my answer to just one of the two questions; you do understand what an analogy is -right?

Originally posted by humy

These are the questions jaywill asked you:

firstly, you didn't say anything about jaywill asking them -how could I possibly know what you were talking about? I am not a mind reader and I don't do word-games.
Secondly, I have already answered them on the bottom of page 6 of this thread and your claim that I don't know the answers is clearly ...[text shortened]... he answers as you claim, perhaps you could enlighten us by answering my questions for him?

note that I answered all his questions but he has yet to give any answers to my above questions -s

Give me time this evening to catch up on posts and I will attempt to answer some question you say you asked me.

I haven't even read any replies to my own yet.

Originally posted by humy
Neither of your two questions makes any sense:

If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?

evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain.....
I could explai ...[text shortened]... s an unintelligently bias selection for the better adapted to survive and pass on their genes.

Neither of your two questions makes any sense:

If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?


evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain..... [/quote]



Do you agree with the following sentences about Richard Dawkins ?

"Richard Dawkins is a reader in zoology at Oxford University. He avidly favors the thesis that random mutations are at the base of all evolution ..."

Is this statement something you agree with or not ?

There is really no need for you to go google anything. Just tell me if you agree that Evolutionist Richard Dawkins is representative of mainstream Evolutionary thought in that "He avidly favors the thesis that random mutations are at the base of all evolution ..." [my emphasis]

Are you trying to run away from the word RANDOM ?

I could explain how a current snow avalanche “arrived” ( started ) by describing how a vibration from, say, an earthquake, caused it to start; so that current avalanche must have a goal?

Most avalanches that I know produce a pile of snow.

Would you equate a big pile of snow with something like the functioning EYE shared by both the octopus and the human being ?

Would you say the arrival at a functioning EYE in both the octopus and the human being by natural process, is roughly the same as the tumbling of large amount of snow down a slope to produce a big pile at the bottom ?

Originally posted by jaywill

Neither of your two questions makes any sense:

If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?


evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain..... [/quote] ...[text shortened]... e as the tumbling of large amount of snow down a slope to produce a big pile at the bottom ?

Do you agree with the following sentences about Richard Dawkins ?

"Richard Dawkins is a reader in zoology at Oxford University. He avidly favors the thesis that random mutations are at the base of all evolution ..."

I would not know if this statement about Richard Dawkins is accurate.
What has this got to do with my question or your previous question concerning a goal?

Are you trying to run away from the word RANDOM ?

no.
again, what does this have to do with my question or your previous question concerning a goal?

You still haven't answered my question here. My question was:
“evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain..... “

Most avalanches that I know produce a pile of snow.

Would you equate a big pile of snow with something like the functioning EYE shared by both the octopus and the human being ?

Would you say the arrival at a functioning EYE in both the octopus and the human being by natural process, is roughly the same as the tumbling of large amount of snow down a slope to produce a big pile at the bottom ?

answers: no and no.
-which has nothing to do with my question.
My question was:

I could explain how a current snow avalanche “arrived” ( started ) by describing how a vibration from, say, an earthquake, caused it to start; so that current avalanche must have a goal?

after you clearly implied that a process must have a goal if you could describe how that process “arrived as we see it today” with your question:

If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?

and I then answered that with:
“evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain..... “
followed by that analogy with an avalanche to give an example of a process without a goal that I can describe how that process “arrived as we see it today” thus debunking your claim. -and you still haven't answered a single question I have put to you here.

Originally posted by humy

Do you agree with the following sentences about Richard Dawkins ?

"Richard Dawkins is a reader in zoology at Oxford University. He avidly favors the thesis that random mutations are at the base of all evolution ..."

I would not know if this statement about Richard Dawkins is accurate.
What has this got to do with my question or your unking your claim. -and you still haven't answered a single question I have put to you here.

You still haven't answered my question here. My question was:
“evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain..... “

Richard Dawkins uses the example of a computerized random letter generation program. His intention was to demonstrate how the random production of a computer could eventually produce a recognizable sentence. From this example he argues that the same could be said for random mutations in the genome producing useful strings of amino acids (proteins) and their preservation.

Now this was his example of reasoning. What this has to do with a natural process without a goal is in a number of places.

If evolution has no goal how would it RECOGNIZE the useful mutation to be preserved ?

Think of the experiment with the computer randomly generating strings of letters to produce a readable English sentence. How would it KNOW which string of letters, ie. "John, how are you today?" is useful, significant, and to be preserved ?

In the case of the random letter generator it has to be programmed into the logic to RECOGNIZE and PRESERVE the arrival at a meaningful sequence of letters, ie "John, how are you today ?"

Is the SELECTION of a useful mutation by means of a goal to recognize and preserve that which is useful to further survival of the species of organism ?

If it is not goal oriented selection of any kind than HOW ELSE could we possibly discribe supposed beneficial outcome to the species but PURE CHANCE ?

That's what the hell the absence of a goal has to do with how evolution arrived at the biosphere we observe. How else should we discribe such an outcome if not "lucky" or the result of pure chance?