subjective science

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Yes, you did claim that a non-random process necessarily requires intelligent intervention.

A stationary rock does not require intelligent intervention to remain stationary.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Quote my exact words where I claimed that.

This was my question to you:

"Would you care to explain a process that is neither random nor driven by an 'intelligent mechanism' that 'improves' things?" A stationary rock is not a process.

So if they don't occur randomly, what is the intelligent mechanism that drives the mutations?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
You asked:

So if they don't occur randomly, what is the intelligent mechanism that drives the mutations?

The implication in your question is that things that do not occur randomly are driven by an "intelligent mechanism."

A stationary rock remaining stationary is a process.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I asked you specifically about mutations and not about rocks.

By the way, a process is a a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. A stationary rock remaining stationary is hardly a series of actions. A process also requires a change. There is no change in a stationary rock.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The premise of your question is that something that is not random is necessarily driven by an "intelligent mechanism." I gave a counter-example to this argument. Hence it is not a given that if a process is not random it is therefore driven by an "intelligent mechanism."

The theory of evolution does not claim or require that mutations are "random." It also does not claim or require "intelligent" intervention in order for mutations to occur.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Mutations require a process. My question was specifically about a process such as a mutation that contains a series of actions or changes in order to achieve a particular end. The example you gave was not a series of actions or changes and neither does it achieve a particular end.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
As I just pointed out, your question contains a false premise. Non-random events do not necessarily require intelligent intervention. Removing the false premise leaves not much of a question behind that might merit an answer.

If you would like to rephrase your question you are of course welcome to.

"A stationary rock does not require intelligent intervention to remain stationary."

Yes, but this debate might require intelligent intervention for putting an end to the snipe hunt.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I'd say something beyond a random process is at play there. Fortunately we have a theory that describes this. You can read more about this theory here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Originally posted by @dj2becker
As I have pointed out you have yet to give me an example of a non random process that systematically improves something that requires no intelligence.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So you don't think for yourself, you are in a debate and your answer is

"Fortunately we have a theory that describes this."

Please explain this beyond the random process, or do you think there is a link is all
that is required for any question?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Well, you appear to lack elementary knowledge about what the theory of evolution says. I reckon the best way to ameliorate this situation is to read about the theory of evolution. A general reference can provide you with a much clearer picture than I could.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Rock formation was the topic, if you are unable or willing to stay on topic okay?

I will not put you on the spot attempting to you make you talk about things you cannot.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
"Systematically improve" in what sense?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do mutations not 'systematically improve' a specie according to evolutionary theory?