Isn't it silly of the ignorant Dawkins to define evolution by "nonrandom" natural selection. Tricky word for a tricky atheist scientist. Why do you think the ignorant Dawkins loves the word nonrandom?
Because there is no randomness involved with natural selection?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I think it's to hide the fact that evolution has specific design. Nonrandom meaning patterns and design. I think it leans to being an intelligent design rather than a purely random design.
Evolution can't be designed, and it can't be random.
If evolution were designed, then my body would make a lot more sense than it does. My vision is horrible, I can't smell very well, i have a deviated septum, and I'm allergic to half the food in the Ocean.
If evolution were random, it would mean that when a woman and a man had a baby, they'd have an equal chance of having a cow, a cockroach, or a fish be their baby as they would a human baby.
The simple fact is that life is a bunch of chemicals interacting with each other, and those chemicals that do a better job of continuing their existence do just that: continue their existence.
It's not random, and it's not designed.
Alright, I appreciate your comment, but of course I have some disagreements.
If evolution wasn't designed, it wouldn't be traceable. There are no non random fossils to find if all fossils were random. I never said it was perfect design, but it does appear intelligent considering lifes changes in evolution to survive the environment. No intelligence, no adaptation, no design, no facts to show that life designs itself around it's environment.
If all of evolution is correct which I believe for the most part, your vision was designed with flaws. Animals evolved eye's to see the environment and many flaws can be traced in evolutions "add-on's" rather than the designer argument of starting all over separately. The bad characteristics of the vision is what allows it to be traced, if it was began from the beginning, there would be no trace of why you have bad vision or why you evolved eyes.
Evolution is not as simple as chemicals mixing, evolution is life consciously recognizing it's environment and making physical changes in the body to adjust. The physical changes come from thoughts of the environment. Without comprehension of the environment, no changes are made to better survive.
See, the problem is that you take "Not designed" to mean "random" and "not-random" to mean "designed".
You're taking words that aren't the same, and then declaring them the same.
Evolution is neither - it's natural selection. I suppose if you want to say that "when water has a current sent through it at X volts, it tears apart the individual atoms and the result is Hydrogen and Oxygen gases" to mean that something is designed, then go ahead.
If you want to translate "if there are 500 bits of sodium, and 250 of them explode one day when it starts raining, then the remaining 250 still exist" as random, then go ahead.
But you'd be wrong. The only randomness that has been shown (not proved - it might just be that we can't measure how things are changing) in nature is in the quantum world, and the only design that has ever been shown is ... well... we haven't shown any true design.
"Evolution is not as simple as chemicals mixing, evolution is life consciously recognizing it's environment and making physical changes in the body to adjust.
Have you ever had a panic attack? From just a simple chemical imbalance, this entire symphony of "life" and "consciousness" gets thrown completely into wild disarray. I've gone through them, and they ain't fun.
Have you ever smoked a joint? I won't admit that I have, but just from adding a little bit of this weird chemical called THC into the system of of a human body, things get pretty weird (from what I hear).
Lord knows I ain't never tried meth, but I hear it causes epilepsy - again, just a simple chemical being added to symphony of other chemicals, which in turn leads to... weirdness.
Have you ever starved yourself for a day? or heck, just half a day? The drop in concentration of this weird chemical called "sugar" in your blood stream can have quite the impact on the "life [that] consciously recognizes it's [sic.] environment".
If life were truly as stellar and mystical as you're painting it to be, all of these examples I've displayed would make little to no sense.
So, what does Dawkins have to say about it? Did you ask him yourself? Did you read his books?
lol I don't need to ask him, but I am reading one of his books and have watched numerous videos of him. Anyone that can dedicate their life and passion to evolution, but is too ignorant to recognize and claim it has design is a moron. It clearly has design plain as day. One would almost have to be unconscious to not see it has design.
Then you aren't really looking for an answer, are you.
I must be unconscious, then.
None whatsoever. Am I supposed to be looking for a "Made in Heaven" or "Made by God" tag somewhere?
Okay Marine, these guys really really need to know about MANDELBROTH. In the 80's, it has been determined mathematically that not a single thing is random. everything is designed according to its seed shape, repeating over various levels of scale. Okay, Random Universe is debunked--mathematics proves it, it is being proven in medicine, biology and in the film industry.
Not really, in physics, the number 1 is representative of the whole, for example we use 1 in place of c as representing the speed of light.
In the Mandelbrot expression of quadratic polynomials:
...where c=1, the integer is not an element of the set. The entire equation becomes unbounded and the results tend to go on to infinity. This isn't random.
But, if c=n^2-1, the equation is bounded to the Mandelbrot set and will not go to infinity, hence it is random.
Beelze, amazing how you believe yourself logical, yet you jump to God assumptions at anything mentioned thats not written by your atheist science heros or posted on a link you can easily post without having to think. Hard being logical isn't it? Keep the faith.
Cecilia, I agree, it's amazing to the the atheist supporters that think evolution evolves from nothing without there being previous design or motive to evolve.
Ok, I found a Platypus that had a "Made by Intelligent Designers" stamp hidden under it's fur.
So, who designed the Platypus?
It is a religious belief so it does not require evidence or substantive arguments - or even a few facts to back it up. The real funny thing is - he admits to not having read anything by Dawkins.
Now you have to disprove it. LOL
Lol I knew you would be here to defend your hero, protect the faith.
How much do I need to read by your unconscious hero to see which he fails to admit in evolution having design? Well he does admit it, just as his use of the word nonrandom. Nonrandom is design.
Doesn't anything about the phrase, "nonrandom is design" strike you as laughably absurd? Doesn't it sound a bit like, "nonblue is green"?
What is faith?
faith is a nonrandom belief in something bigger than yourself right? LOL
"lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance;"
This is a definition for random, so what is nonrandom? You put the pieces together. Nonrandom is design and purpose. Are you incapable or reading beyond selective atheist wording?
I don't think nonrandom necessarily = design, to address the problem technically.
>>"and everybody was kung fu fighting"<<< random lyrics....
Pandora, i'll accept that, but what keeps evolution from being designed? The body parts and colors are designed to match the environment or for sexual selection, with no design, there would be no reason for the changes in evolution, much less could they be studied and traced back to origins of evolving.
He probably likes the word 'nonrandom' because it's a vague, semi-equivocal way of explaining something unknown, and the term lacks overall depth & clarity.
he did say truth is stranger than any god we can conceive to be.
I guess that is suppose to be a nice way of saying he doesn't know the truth, nor can he conceive it.
It is a clumsy phrase, but 'non-random natural selection' simply means that there are specific factors which affect natural selection, i.e. how well adapted an organism is to it's ecological niche. Well adapted organisms live and breed, poorly adapted organisms die without breeding, therefore the natural processes which select whether an organism will breed are not random.
I've never been called an egghead before, thanks and mmmmwwaahh right back at ya
ooo, a sexy martial artist egghead!!!! (I am one myself, and therefore can identitify you instantly!) Which form of martial arts do you do?
Breed-breed-breed, ya say... Hmm, sounds like fun talk, to me.
It's not the breeding that's the fun part OD.
Keph, what makes the difference of which organisms adapt better and which ones fail? I think it's because the ones that adapt are more conscious of survival while the ones that fail are less conscious. How do the organisms adapt without being conscious of survival?
To be fair, I will admit that I started the thread before reading one of Dawkins books, one of Knowles recommended books, "The Greatest Show on Earth". I would also like to note that Knowles doesn't want to debate anything with me after I read his recommended book. I have to say, it was a great book, very entertaining with a wealth of knowledge. However, I must say, I still think Dawkins is ignorant along with any other evolutionist along with Darwin that fails to admit the intelligence and design of evolution. Dawkins last line from the greatest show on earth:
"We are surrounded by endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, and it is no "accident", but the "direct consequence" of evolution by "non-random natural selection" the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth."
What does this mean to you?
"it is no accident" --- indeed, it is no accident. Innate chemicals began to reproduce themselves and thus generated Abiogenesis. The chemicals that continued and most efficiently reproduced themselves eventually became you and me.
"the direct consequence of evolution" -- yes, the name we give to this chain of events (reproduction), indeed is the reason why I'm here. Nothing surprising here.
"non-random natural selection" -- it isn't random, because some organisms do better than others. It isn't designed because... well... because it isn't. It is truly "non-random", or put another way "non-designed", or put another way "non-designed-nor-random", or put another way "Natural Selection".
I know it seems dull and depressing to think of yourself as a rock that started having babies somehow... but... think of it!! You are a rock that somehow started having babies ... that's pretty gnarly if you ask me.
How much futher would evolution have came along by now and been accepted if it wasn't for ignorant scientists trying to hide the facts that evolution has design, intelligence, and purpose?
... it ... doesn't ... have any of those...
The reason I'm alive is because of the simple statement that I can say with absolute confidence:
"I exist today, because each one of my ancestors survived their environment long enough to meet a mate and produce offspring, and those offspring proceeded to do the same".
That is ALL that evolution is. That sentence summarizes everything there is to know about evolution.
No magic. No Intelligence. No purpose. No design.
Just survival and sex (well, not sex per se. Reproduction. Many organisms don't deal with sex).
by marinealways24 8 years ago
Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?
by TMMason 8 years ago
I enjoy this video so very much.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1Abaa.. ah... ah... aba... what?I love that video... not to mention the fact that he never answered the question. Yes, I have read his letter to his fans as to his answer. And it is almost as funny as the video.The...
by Bill Akers 4 years ago
Which theory takes more faith, Creation, Evolution, or Intelligent Design?Please answer with reasonWe know that these are the most popular theories about The Beginning. We also realize that all of them are just theories, not scientific laws. I'm interested in the reasoning behind your answer. Thank...
by lizzieBoo 7 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is "intellectually disappointing," according to Johnathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi in London,...
by Castlepaloma 4 years ago
What constitutes scientific research and evidence), science education, free speech, separation of Church and State, and theology. I’m building two sculptures of two different worlds. One of Creationism and one of Evolutional World with hundreds of animals, sea, landscapes and the some of the 99%...
by zapata0 8 years ago
Is creationism / intelligent design science how do you know whats makes science different from other beliefs does it violate the establishment clause to teach creationism. Comment on "rns s evolution and intelligent design this author seeks to explain part of the evolution/intelligent design...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|