Goku: While there are random components to evolution, and probably in abiogenesis too, the process as a whole is non-random. Something creationists never seem to fully grasp.
No, not really, and you can bet your life anything you can grasp I can grasp. In fact it's not as simple as evolutionists think, with this random-versus-non-random canard. In fact "random" is defined as "without conscious decision," meaning if evolution is "non-random" that means it is done with conscious decision. Non-random means teleology, that it's done on purpose.
In fact, this creationist knows that the only part of evolution which could be argued to strictly be "non-random" is S@xual selection. Natural selection is only the description of differential reproduction, it is a patheticism (to give nature features of sentience), because nobody is there, "selecting" it simply means that naturally some traits are conducive to survival, meaning those with them will survive to reproduce. But the trait must first exist. So a locking mechanism design isn't chosen, it has to be "created", and the random mutations don't "create it" and the selection can only "select" it meaning logically evolution can't create anything.
In fact mostly evolution is random, mutations are defined as "random sampling errors", that means that every viably "correct material" in lifeforms would have been given by random mutation. Not just the materials, but in some cases the correct chemicals, for the correct order, for example birds are believed to navigate with the help of tiny magnetic crystals in their beaks. But also the correct designs can only occur if mutations send the correct parts, for example birds have a sophisticated locking mechanism in their toes so they won't fall off their perches at night. What are you saying, that all those without the mechanism, died when they fell off their perches and didn't manage to fly, so selection chose all the ones with locking mechanisms? But what if such a mechanism is a sophisticated design? What about the hooks and barbules, which is a locking mechanism for the feathers. Do we have to believe by faith in evolution, that this was also designed by evolution? Logically the designs of all these things do have to still come about randomly. That is to say - selection might not be random but that doesn't mean that selection created all such designs. The designs themselves are not random, but they are specifically, intentionally designed to solve a problem, to say they aren't is identical to saying that a differential wasn't intentionally designed to solve wheelspin.
So even selection itself isn't specific enough, if selection only chooses the ones that survive, that doesn't mean the ones that survive already have a sophisticated design selection can choose. So a coarse selection of "this one is fit", won't lead to something as specific as a cathedral, if a wall is needed to protect. In other words, selection although isn't strictly random, isn't fully non-random either, in that natural selection is only a coarse selector, it cannot "choose" on the level of a teleological agent but the designs in nature are of a level of sophistication which exceeds that which our own teleological agents can create. So natural selection, as a coarse selector, can only "choose" the fit. If that is sufficient then that is like saying that if I randomly buy car parts on Ebay, I only need to "select" the correct ones, in order to build a car, and because the none-selected ones are not chosen, this will be enough to give me the intelligence to create my own car.
No indeed - evolution is too random for the sophistication of a sea-anemone dart-eating slug or the Bombardier beetle's chemistry or the clotting cascade. Evolution, is way, way, way more "random" that a purposeful designer, and these lifeforms show purposeful design very clearly, by matching the specific requirements of the necessity.
By analogy it's like me saying, "I need to build a car to survive." Now imagine I randomly select items from Ebay, will that enable me to build a Jaguar E-type? No I don't think so - and even if evolution wasn't random, what a WEAK point - that you say that the best "selector" of the designs in nature, isn't teleological, isn't an infinite intelligence that could create all of the millions of viable designs we see with all of the correct components and types of materials and contingencies, but rather selection is an all-powerful, omniscient designer, that if there is a selection pressure that will give you a miraculous design.
That's like saying that if there is pressure on me to build a car, the best solution is to randomly order parts from Ebay then when I receive the parts just ditch the ones I don't need and that will be enough to give me the car.
No indeed - selection is far, far too weak to account for the miraculously brilliant intelligent in the design of life.
Goku: Lots of things in science sound absurd. A piece of wood is mostly empty space, or that we are zipping thousands of miles an hour around the Sun
Yes you've done the whole "false comparison" argument many times, as clever as you think it is, I see it for what it exactly is - a pile of codswallop Goku. For mostly empty space in wood or our zipping through space at speed, is proven, whereas evolution isn't Goku, indeed - it is so far from proven that really you make the contrast very stark by comparing it to things in science which clearly are proven.
Goku: My point is that just saying evolution is absurd, or to frame it in such a way as to make it sound absurd, is not really convincing to me nor any evolutionist here. I don't think I am being too presumptuous here in speaking for evolutionists when I say that the details, as best as we can understand, indicate that evolution is real no matter how one spins them to sound absurd.
No, evolution isn't real because evolutionists believe it is, and there isn't one solid argument for macro evolution being real. What is real, is that biomimetics deductively proves that the designs in nature are more intelligent than ours because we steal them. What is real is that there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe that various proteins which just happen to all be homochiral and fold so they have a purpose, together with DNA information and kinesin motors, would construct themselves for no reason. That is about as, "real" as Freddy Krueger. So if you dimwittedly think I am only saying evolution is absurd, then think again - for it is precisely absurd, and a contradiction to believe that all of the millions of viably designed, most sophisticated intelligent designs in existence, created themselves without any intelligence.
That is an absolute sham, and all you can do as usual is try to use "other science" to compare it to, and appeal to, "science". Notice the way you don't say, "in evolution theory", no - you have to say, "in science there are lots of things that seem absurd". What a very clear rhetorical device you use there, by appealing to scientific legitimacy, but if you can read english then you will have understood that all such rhetoric was addressed when I said this;
"Goku - no amount of science-varnish is going to make this change, ultimately evolution theory, no matter how you argue it, is a farcical falsehood,"
Goku: My point is that just saying evolution is absurd, or to frame it in such a way as to make it sound absurd, is not really convincing to me nor any evolutionist here
Again I think this is part of the superiority-complex you have, the rhetorical position of pretending you, the evolutionists the ones that "accept science", are the ones in the know and the ones that need to be convinced and the ones of wisdom.
It's patronising the way you say, "lots of things in science" as though you are science, and I need teaching science by you. As though I wouldn't know that a scientific concept can be counter-intuitive. This is all part of the false picture atheists paint, that they are the science people of education and correctness and we pitched against science.
What a simplistic argument, for not only do I accept 99.9% of science and could probably beat you on some science tests, but even of the theory of evolution there are facts within such a theory that can be accepted; mutations, selection, genetic drift, gene flow, sympatric and allopatric speciation, different ratios between homozygous and heterozygous genes, changes in the frequencies of alleles, some beneficial mutations such as sickled cells helping to fight malaria, anti-freeze fish.
This whole FACADE, that you are science and I am not - is the only game you can play. Think how much trouble you would be in if this forum didn't allow you to use the term, "science" or ever appeal to it in any rhetorical way - you would be like the emperor with no pants, because that is the whole game - this tactic of saying, "we are science, you are opposed to science, this is what science teaches as real and fact".
Goku none of that changes the fact that the case for evolution is pitifully pathetic beyond belief. Logically it is a trainwreck I can refute if you give me one hour before a jury. The case for an unlimited intelligent designer on the other hand, is backed up by all of the SCIENTIFIC facts of intelligent design; information, specified complexity, correct materials (what all of them by accidental mutation, millions of them, Lol, and the correct gases for the Bombardier beetle, and the correct chemicals for the clotting cascade? Lol!) viability, irreducible complexity, etc, etc, etc......listen the whole world you say, agrees with you? That's okay because like God has said, "the whole world holds sway" under the power of the enemy - and his deceptive philosophies.
That is all evolution is - a philosophy, there are no facts in the physical world to support it, all of the intermediate stages that would have had to exist, simply are not there in the record, like if I insisted I was on CCTV at the time of a crime, and was not found recorded on it.