The logic of natural selection (for Roger)

[Ray Martinez]

--random cause (mutation) + non-random cause (natural selection)
produces organized complexity or ordered effects--

In the above cause-and-effect scheme the final cause, or that which
handles species lastly, is non-random. Thus non-random cause produces
ordered effects (= logical).

But Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins have criticized the general
notion of non-random (or any synonym) producing ordered effects as
illogical. The specific notion in mind would be guided or directed
cause creating organized complexity or ordered effects (= logical).

So we can say the general notion is indeed logical. This means the
specific notion must also be logical. One cannot conclude against the
latter since the same is a synonymous construction.

But the issue here is not teleological cause-and-effect schemes, but
the logic of natural selection----or that which is portrayed as non-
random. Yet evolutionary authorities routinely describe the selection
process as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (to name
a few).

The question then arises: How can the selection process be described
as non-random yet mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and
remain logical?

I contend the concept of non-random contradicts the concepts of
mindlessness, unguidedness, undirectedness, and unintelligence. And I
contend that the general description of natural selection as a non-
random process is maintained so the evolutionary cause-and-effect
scheme is seen as logical and not antonymic.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/13/13 8:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> --random cause (mutation) + non-random cause (natural selection)
> produces organized complexity or ordered effects--

Mutation and selection is what produces adaptive changes in a
population. "Organized complexity" is not something that is clearly
defined by anyone.

>
> In the above cause-and-effect scheme the final cause, or that which
> handles species lastly, is non-random. Thus non-random cause produces
> ordered effects (= logical).

It's a combination of random changes being filtered by non random
selection over generations.

>
> But Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins have criticized the general
> notion of non-random (or any synonym) producing ordered effects as
> illogical.

Where has any "evolutionist" in this newsgroup done that, Ray? You are
the one claiming things to be illogical. A non random process may
produce ordered effects, or it may not. Logic neither supports, or
denies such an occurance.

> The specific notion in mind would be guided or directed
> cause creating organized complexity or ordered effects (= logical).

Guided processes do produce complex, or ordered products, but not
always. More to the point, it doesn't always required a guided process
to produce an ordered effect. Once again, Ray, you equivocate what
you expect with logic.

>
> So we can say the general notion is indeed logical.

The "general notion" is only what you, Ray, expect, not what is logical.

> This means the
> specific notion must also be logical.

No, because the "general notion" is not arrived at by logic. It is only
what you would expect, if you were particularly uneducated, and naive.

> One cannot conclude against the
> latter since the same is a synonymous construction.

A "synonymous construction" is not necessarily a logical one. Your own
ideas of what is, or is not logic show a general disconnect between
reality and your views.

>
> But the issue here is not teleological cause-and-effect schemes, but
> the logic of natural selection----or that which is portrayed as non-
> random.

Once more, since you are very much confused about what is, or is not
logic, why should anyone accept your assertions here?

> Yet evolutionary authorities routinely describe the selection
> process as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (to name
> a few).

Yes, but none of those words above are "random". Mindless, unguided,
undirected, and unintelligent processes do not have to be random ones.
Some examples: Gravity, Condensation, Thermodynamics, Inertia. All of
those are mindless, unguided etc, but none are random.

>
> The question then arises: How can the selection process be described
> as non-random yet mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and
> remain logical?

Because random and "mindless" are not the same thing. Many forces are
mindless, but not random.

>
> I contend the concept of non-random contradicts the concepts of
> mindlessness, unguidedness, undirectedness, and unintelligence.

Your contention is wrong. Undirected processes and random chance are
not the same thing at all.

> And I
> contend that the general description of natural selection as a non-
> random process is maintained so the evolutionary cause-and-effect
> scheme is seen as logical and not antonymic.

This too just shows your own ignorance. Natural selection is described
as non random because it is a decidedly biased process. Those
individuals in a population that survive are determined by the
environment, and their own phenotype. It is a positive correlation
between phenotype and survival. That is not a random happenstance.


DJT

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:1sCdnSPVzaLQDifM...@giganews.com...

It is not easy to understand all that Ray says. What is he aiming at? To
tell us that unless God steps in, nature is 'governed' by randomness?

But randomness doesn't imply chaos and disorder; the universe displays
plenty of order. As long as enormous amounts of enery is available the
universe can do things that Ray newer will understand. Only a serious study
of physics might teach Ray a little understanding of nature. But he is
attempting to will nature into a straightjacket defined by his personal
beliefs and definitions. The problem he can't escape is that nature doesn't
obey his wishful thinking about how nature works.

I think we now are seeing him feverishly doing Quality Assurance on his
arguments for the perennial book project. I believe I've chararcterized him
like a Sisyphus before.

>
> DJT
>

[Bill]

Ray, you might disprove the theory of evolution by producing evidence
that falsified its predictions and by coming up with an alternate
theory that made more correct predictions. But you'll never make a
dent in it by playing these silly word games. Words don't matter much;
evidence matters.

[jonathan]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6171b1f7-715a-4854...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

> --random cause (mutation) + non-random cause (natural selection)
> produces organized complexity or ordered effects--

In my hobby they would characterize the source of organization
as the critical interaction between independent variables.
Or the random interactions between autonomous agents.
A complex network of evolved creations produce emergent
properties.

The two primary forces for evolution would be the
(static) rules of operation (such as genetics) interacting
with the (chaotic) or random changes due to things like
mutations and selection.

For things to evolve, there must be two /qualitatively/
opposite forces which persistently compete against
each other. The two types of forces are so different
from each other they're considered apples and oranges
so to speak, when it comes to objective observing.

That's why objective methods can only see half the 'picture'
at any given time. The confusing duality we see within nature
is the fault of our chosen methods of observation.

[Burkhard]

On 14 June, 03:44, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --random cause (mutation) + non-random cause (natural selection)
> produces organized complexity or ordered effects--
>
> In the above cause-and-effect scheme the final cause, or that which
> handles species lastly, is non-random. Thus non-random cause produces
> ordered effects (= logical).
>

Why? What is "logical" about this? I'd say at best it is a contingent,
empirical statement, something we may accept because we observe it
happening often (i.e. learned inductively), but it is not part of the
word meaning of "case" "random" or 2non-random"

I've given you the example of non-random causes creating random
effects ("building a bomb"), since t is something that we know
happens, it can hardly be said to contradict logic or the meaning of
the words involved.

> But Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins have criticized the general
> notion of non-random (or any synonym) producing ordered effects as
> illogical.

Nope, nobody denies tat non-random processes can also cause ordered
effects. People actually build watches. What is simply factually wrong
(rather than "illogical) is the idea that_only_
non-random processes can produce ordered effects.

> The specific notion in mind would be guided or directed
> cause creating organized complexity or ordered effects (= logical).

Again, why? I challenge your claim that this is "logical", what is the
evidence you have for that assertion apart from stating it?

>
> So we can say the general notion is indeed logical. Not a question of logic, but one of fact: guided efforts "sometimes" do indeed create ordered effect

No, what we can say is tha tin some cases, this is what we observe.

> This means the
> specific notion must also be logical. One cannot conclude against the
> latter since the same is a synonymous construction.
>
> But the issue here is not teleological cause-and-effect schemes, but
> the logic of natural selection----or that which is portrayed as non-
> random. Yet evolutionary authorities routinely describe the selection
> process as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (to name
> a few).
>
> The question then arises: How can the selection process be described
> as non-random yet mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and
> remain logical?

Because it is governed by laws that make the outcome predictable. The
term "random" is preserved for those processes which, for whatever
reason, do not allow us to predict the outcome in every individual
case, and only allows us (at best) to make statistical or
probabilistic predictions.

This applies to guided and on-guided processes by the way. Put up a
barrier exactly in the middle of a busy street. Some people will
decide to walk around it on the left, others will decide to walk
around it on the right. In each individual case, this is the result of
a guided decision. Yet as an observer, you will not normally be able
to predict how _that_ person who just approaches the barrier will
decide. So from your perspective, the decision is random. Yet you may
be able after a bit of observation to distinguish a probabilistic
pattern, e.g. that 70 out of a hundred people walk around it on the
right (possibly as a result of the majority of people being right
handed) which make sit not a purely random effect, bit one that is
deterministically biased. So you can make a probabilistic statement
about the population: people will with a certain probability take the
right way over the left, but nothing more than that.

>
> I contend the concept of non-random contradicts the concepts of
> mindlessness, unguidedness, undirectedness, and unintelligence.

And you can content as much as you want. without reasons or evidence,
nobody cares.

<> And I
> contend that the general description of natural selection as a non-
> random process is maintained so the evolutionary cause-and-effect
> scheme is seen as logical and not antonymic.

And you'd be wrong, as scientists really don't care about this sort of
word game. Natural selection is not random simply because we can make
testable predictions for the specific trait in question. I predict
e.g. that as climate changes, polar bears with a lighter coat than
others will have a reproductive advantage due to better heat
management. Could be right, could be wrong, but what it is not in a
random effect

>
> Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> --random cause (mutation) + non-random cause (natural selection)
> produces organized complexity or ordered effects--
>
> In the above cause-and-effect scheme the final cause, or that which
> handles species lastly, is non-random. Thus non-random cause produces
> ordered effects (= logical).
>
> But Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins have criticized the general
> notion of non-random (or any synonym) producing ordered effects as
> illogical. The specific notion in mind would be guided or directed
> cause creating organized complexity or ordered effects (= logical).
>
> So we can say the general notion is indeed logical. This means the
> specific notion must also be logical. One cannot conclude against the
> latter since the same is a synonymous construction.

Firstly, thanks for taking the time and effort to organize
your position and attempt to make it clear. Unsurprisingly,
I have issues with what is presented.

In essence, the problem is equivocation between different
meanings of words but it is exacerbated by this notion of
yours that synonymous constructions are equivalent by
which you mean that you can freely substitute between
sets of words that you identify as synonyms AND maintain
the strictures of logic.

Ironically, one of the words where this equivocation is most
prevalent is "logic" and "illogic" but another is "random".

To begin with, lets look at the phrase "synonymous construction".
I would hope most people who use that phrase would be using it
to refer to constructions that mean the same thing but you are,
I believe, using it to mean constructions that are equivalent
because they involve substitutions of synonyms. Those are not
the same things for multiple reasons, including but not limited
to the problem of equivocation.

If you simply swap two words that are considered synonyms, the
meanings still may change. Synonyms have similar meaning, not
identical meaning. And words have multiple distinct meaning.
Words can be considered to be synonyms between a first meaning
for word 1 and the third meaning for word 2. If you substitute
between the two words you are likely shifting the original bit
of logic to imply distinctly different contexts than you have
previously established. That produces a mess. It's the reason
that "synonymous construction" where synonymous is modifying
_construction_ is a world apart from "synonymous construction"
as you use it to means constructions that substitute synonyms.

Below I see this problem illustrated with the word "random"
which has multiple meanings. I'd be willing to explain the
exact problems but first I'd want to get the above clear
between us.

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/13/2013 10:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> But the issue here is not teleological cause-and-effect schemes, but
> the logic of natural selection----or that which is portrayed as non-
> random. Yet evolutionary authorities routinely describe the selection
> process as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (to name
> a few).

I'm always in favor of using specifics instead of generalities. We're
getting stuck here on different meanings of "random". Here's the "logic"
in more specific terms:

The makeup of creatures is largely controlled by their genetic
complement; their DNA.

(Some) changes to DNA result in observable changes to the creature; a
longer forelimb, a different blood protein, a thinner cell wall.

Mutations are copying errors that change the DNA a creature is "born"
with. The creature thus has some bits of its genome that are "new", not
inherited from its "parent(s)".

The mutations that occur are not correlated with advantageous or
disadvantageous changes in the resultant creature. The resultant changes
could be fatal, deleterious, advantageous, neutral (all measured in that
creature's environment) or there could be no observable changes at all.

Because the mutations are not correlated with any particular kind of
change, they are considered "random" with respect to fitness.

Some of the observable changes that result from mutations give the
creatures that possess them a better chance of surviving to reproduce,
and of leaving more offspring in the next generation.

Some of the observable changes that result from mutations give the
creatures that possess them a poorer chance of surviving to reproduce,
and make them likely to leave fewer offspring in the next generation.

The previous two paragraphs we call Natural Selection. You call it
"random" because it is unguided; we call it "non-random" because it
introduces a "bias" in favor of the reproduction of certain traits (and
the DNA that produce them) and against others.

But whether or not we agree on the label of "random" or "non-random",
the bias exists. Over generations, more creatures in a population will
come to possess some traits and lose others. If the trend continues, the
entire population may come to have the "altered" trait that originated
as a random mutation.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/13/13 7:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [snip to the crux]

> The question then arises: How can the selection process be described
> as non-random yet mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and
> remain logical?
>
> I contend the concept of non-random contradicts the concepts of
> mindlessness, unguidedness, undirectedness, and unintelligence. And I
> contend that the general description of natural selection as a non-
> random process is maintained so the evolutionary cause-and-effect
> scheme is seen as logical and not antonymic.

I have seen mindless, unguided etc. processes produce non-random effects
(e.g. sand dunes and wave ripples). I have seen intelligent, guided
etc. processes produce random effects (e.g. roulette). Your contention
is wrong.

The most illogical thing about your whole thesis is your idea of what
logic entails.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 13, 8:51�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip a string of angry ad hominen attacks by Dana....]

> > But the issue here is not teleological cause-and-effect schemes, but
> > the logic of natural selection----or that which is portrayed as non-
> > random.
>
> Once more, since you are very much confused about what is, or is not
> logic, why should anyone accept your assertions here?

Yes, someone or some party is confused----that's certainly the point
of this topic. The evos are the ones who are confused, that is, the
ones who have fused together contrary concepts (random and non-random;
and non-random with mindless and other synonymous adjectives as
producing antonymic effects).

> > Yet evolutionary authorities routinely describe the selection
> > process as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (to name
> > a few).
>
> Yes, but none of those words above are "random".

The point, which seems to have escaped your understanding, is that all
of the words in question are synonymous and must be synonymous or the
cause-and-effect scheme is illogical. The evolutionary scheme
describes a non-designed cause-and-effect process. Therefore "non-
random" in the context of said scheme, taken at face value,
contradicts all other surrounding terms, however. Since evo
authorities do not deny the scheme as relating a non-designed cause-
and-effect process the term "non-random," and all of its teleological
baggage, is quite deceptive. It equates to a monkeywrench in the
scheme.

In essence, "non-random" is understood as representing a teleological
cause, but in this case it represents the exact opposite. As long as
the foregoing fact is recognized the scheme cannot be challenged as
illogical. The only problem is that evo authorities DO NOT recognize
the fact. They allow a teleological sense to be carried when the non-
random adjective is used. I contend they do so deliberately and
ignorantly, just depends. At any rate, the fusion of contrary concepts
is seen at face value (= confusion).

--random and non-random; and non-random with mindless and other
synonymous adjectives producing antonymic effects--

The evo cause-and-effect scheme, seen above, conveys confusion and
illogic.

Ray

(Will finish replying ASAP)

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:

> Yes, someone or some party is confused----that's certainly the point
> of this topic. The evos are the ones who are confused, that is, the
> ones who have fused together contrary concepts (random and non-random;
> and non-random with mindless and other synonymous adjectives as
> producing antonymic effects).

_If_ random processes were limited to producing random results,
random results could still produce complex results.
Random results are understood to be any of the possible
results with some probability assigned to each result.
A complex result is understood to be one of these results.
Thus, a random process has the potential to produce a
complex result (with a certain probability). Many added
processes can also change probabilities of outcomes.
Changing probabilities does not require foresight, intelligence
or will. It isn't "illogical" for a process to produce the
results we know it can produce.

And that's only part of where you are wrong. But it is
enough to invalidate your claim.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/14/13 6:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 13, 8:51 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip a string of angry ad hominen attacks by Dana....]
>
>>> But the issue here is not teleological cause-and-effect schemes, but
>>> the logic of natural selection----or that which is portrayed as non-
>>> random.
>>
>> Once more, since you are very much confused about what is, or is not
>> logic, why should anyone accept your assertions here?
>
> Yes, someone or some party is confused

And his initials are RM.

> ----that's certainly the point
> of this topic. The evos are the ones who are confused, that is, the
> ones who have fused together contrary concepts (random and non-random;
> and non-random with mindless and other synonymous adjectives as
> producing antonymic effects).

This is just more evidence of your confusion. You keep imagining that
grammar trumps reality.

>
>>> Yet evolutionary authorities routinely describe the selection
>>> process as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (to name
>>> a few).
>>
>> Yes, but none of those words above are "random".
>
> The point, which seems to have escaped your understanding, is that all
> of the words in question are synonymous and must be synonymous or the
> cause-and-effect scheme is illogical.

Once again, synonyms are parts of grammar, not scientific evidence of
anything. The words you mentioned do not mean "random", and are not
interchangeable, even if their meanings are similar.

> The evolutionary scheme
> describes a non-designed cause-and-effect process.

As are all natural processes that can be observed. It's no different
than gravity and inertia cause orbits of the planets. Gravity and
inertia are non intelligent, and not "designed" (as far as can be
determined by science), yet they produce a non random effect.

> Therefore "non-
> random" in the context of said scheme, taken at face value,
> contradicts all other surrounding terms, however.

Non random is a description of the process, as it has an obvious bias
toward a particular outcome. That it's without a mind and not designed
is entirely irrelevant to that fact that it's non random.

> Since evo
> authorities do not deny the scheme as relating a non-designed cause-
> and-effect process the term "non-random," and all of its teleological
> baggage, is quite deceptive. It equates to a monkeywrench in the
> scheme.

There's no deception, or "monkeywrench" anywhere. Whatever
"authorities' claim is also irrelevant to the facts. The process of
natural selection is non random, despite being unintelligent, and not
capable of planning,

>
> In essence, "non-random" is understood as representing a teleological
> cause,

"Understood" by whom? That's something you just made up this minute.
No one but you "understands" it that way.

> but in this case it represents the exact opposite.

In nearly every case "non random" does not mean "teleological cause".
Where do you get the idea that natural selection is an exception?

> As long as
> the foregoing fact is recognized the scheme cannot be challenged as
> illogical.

The 'scheme' can't be challenged as illogical because it is not
illogical, not because of some silly rule you just made up.

> The only problem is that evo authorities DO NOT recognize
> the fact.

Again you place too much stock in "authorities". Science does not
depend on the word of individuals, but on the evidence itself.
Scientists who study evolution do not recognize things you just made up
all the time. That's not a problem for anyone but you.

> They allow a teleological sense to be carried when the non-
> random adjective is used.

Apparently this means you have become confused, and are blaming
scientists, instead of your own inability to understand. Scientists
never intended, or implied a "teleological sense" in the first place.
You have just assumed it, and refuse to admit your own error.

> I contend they do so deliberately and
> ignorantly, just depends.

You can contend whatever you want, but you are the one who is wrong.
You made a mistake, and don't have the honesty to admit you are wrong.

> At any rate, the fusion of contrary concepts
> is seen at face value (= confusion).

That's not what the word "confusion" means, Ray. Your English is worse
than your grasp of biology.

>
> --random and non-random; and non-random with mindless and other
> synonymous adjectives producing antonymic effects--
>
> The evo cause-and-effect scheme, seen above, conveys confusion and
> illogic.

All the above conveys is your own confusion over language and it's
limitations.

>
> Ray
>
> (Will finish replying ASAP)

Ray runs away again....

>
>> Mindless, unguided,
>> undirected, and unintelligent processes do not have to be random ones.
>> Some examples: Gravity, Condensation, Thermodynamics, Inertia. All of
>> those are mindless, unguided etc, but none are random.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The question then arises: How can the selection process be described
>>> as non-random yet mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and
>>> remain logical?
>>
>> Because random and "mindless" are not the same thing. Many forces are
>> mindless, but not random.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I contend the concept of non-random contradicts the concepts of
>>> mindlessness, unguidedness, undirectedness, and unintelligence.
>>
>> Your contention is wrong. Undirected processes and random chance are
>> not the same thing at all.
>>
>>> And I
>>> contend that the general description of natural selection as a non-
>>> random process is maintained so the evolutionary cause-and-effect
>>> scheme is seen as logical and not antonymic.
>>
>> This too just shows your own ignorance. Natural selection is described
>> as non random because it is a decidedly biased process. Those
>> individuals in a population that survive are determined by the
>> environment, and their own phenotype. It is a positive correlation
>> between phenotype and survival. That is not a random happenstance.
>>
>> DJT
>
>

DJT

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

I am amazed that this person is unable to grasp this key crucial point
in the paragraph above. It's been carefully explained to him over and
over again.Or perhaps he's unwilling to grasp it, in which case no
amount of explaining will make him understand.

[Rolf]

<ala...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:47462ddd-e301-49b4...@wf10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

It seems to me evolution is a very complex subject, (very interesting stuff
here:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.no/2010/03/introduction-to-curious-disconnect.html)

In this particular case, I believe our problem is that the person in
question has a very narrow goal:
QUOTE:
Evolution was accepted when Darwin published in 1859. He was the
founding architect. The foundation of his explication still stands
today. I am after that foundation. Gould 2002 (1000 + pages) was
written in defense of that foundation. If that foundation were to fall
every thing built on top goes with it. Do you now understand?
UNQUOTE

Denial of Natural Selection is the key, rhetorics is the forge.

Rolf

[Ray Martinez]

These comments clearly indicate that you don't understand the issue at
hand. Since the overall selection process is admittedly non-designed
and fully material, even from a metaphysical standpoint, the term "non-
random" contradicts the non-teleological admission and several other
major concepts used to describe natural selection. The collective evo
inability to understand this basic point of conceptual contradiction
is the real issue here.

I would say that some evos present do indeed understand but since evo
authorities are on record as saying the process is non-random the
description must be defended----no matter what. These authorities
employ "non-random" almost always in conjunction with attempts to
defeat the dreaded criticism that says diversity and human beings were
produced by chance. Since teleology is not involved in the production
of life, past and present, the theory of evolution does indeed claim
that we are the products of chance, error and accident. Therefore the
"non-random" claim is a tool that belongs to the propaganda department
of evolutionary theory. Since no Designer exists Atheists most
certainly do believe that life was produced by chance alone every step
of the way. The insertion of "non-random" within the evo cause-and-
effect scheme contradicts all other surrounding concepts; cause:
random mutation, *non-random,* mindless, unguided, undirected,
unintelligent selection; effects: organized, ordered, complex); OR the
propaganda scheme; cause: random mutation, mindless, unguided,
undirected, unintelligent, *non-random* selection; effects: organized,
ordered, complex.

Note that *non-random,* in the propaganda scheme, precedes concepts
relating effects that do not contradict, but contradict preceding
terms relating causation. So the term "non-random" serves to not only
defang the criticism of chance, but to make the scheme appear logical.
But since the entire scheme is admittedly non-designed the appearance
is false.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You haven't shown any understanding of what I actually wrote;
therefore your reply equates to a non-sequitur.

As for what you did write the same presupposes evolution true and goes
on to say the logic is thus automatically sound. In short, your
schtick begs the question while ignoring the fact of contradictory
concepts employed by the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 13, 11:44�pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> skrev i meldingnews:1sCdnSPVzaLQDifM...@giganews.com...

In a nutshell: The description of natural selection as a non-random
process contradicts preceding random mutation and other terms
describing the selection process; namely, mindless, unguided,
undirected, and unintelligent. Moreover, terms accepted by
Creationists and Darwinists that describe effects (diversity); namely,
organized, order, and complexity contradict every term except non-
random. Lastly, since the entire evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme
is admittedly non-designed the pro-teleological term "non-random"
contradicts said admission.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the non-random description, within the
causation portion of the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme, serves
two purposes: (1) Since effects are described by concepts that are pro-
teleological, the inclusion of non-random becomes a logical necessity,
defeating all criticism that observes the construct, minus the
inclusion, illogical; (2) and, most importantly, since it is
understood by most everyone, Darwinist and Creationist alike, that
life past and present could not be the product of chance, non-random
serves to defeat that particular criticism that hounds evolutionary
theory. But since the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme is
admittedly non-designed, all life, past and present, was indeed the
product of chance, error, and/or accident.

> To tell us that unless God steps in, nature is 'governed' by randomness?

No, to tell you guys that the description of "non-random" contradicts
random and all other terms used to describe evolutionary causation;
and to tell you guys that terms accepted to describe effects/diversity
contradict every term in the causation scheme except non-random.

I argue in the overall context that evolution is completely false;
each species remain immutable, the products of periodic real time
independent creation.

> But randomness doesn't imply chaos and disorder; the universe displays
> plenty of order. As long as enormous amounts of enery is available the
> universe can do things that Ray newer will understand. Only a serious study
> of physics might teach Ray a little understanding of nature. But he is
> attempting to will nature into a straightjacket defined by his personal
> beliefs and definitions. The problem he can't escape is that nature doesn't
> obey his wishful thinking about how nature works.

In essence, I'm saying that evolutionary theory asks us to believe
that life (organized complexity) is the product of a cause-and-effect
scheme that employs antonyms (= contradiction). The concepts of random
and mindlessness are NOT commensurately seen in effects .

Moreover, by using the term "straightjacket" you've recognized the
fact that my thinking is straight or objective, and the thinking seen
in the evo cause-and-effect scheme is not straight or subjective.

Ray

[....]

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 14, 6:28 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Yes, someone or some party is confused----that's certainly the point
>>> of this topic. The evos are the ones who are confused, that is, the
>>> ones who have fused together contrary concepts (random and non-random;
>>> and non-random with mindless and other synonymous adjectives as
>>> producing antonymic effects).
>>
>> _If_ random processes were limited to producing random results,
>> random results could still produce complex results.
>> Random results are understood to be any of the possible
>> results with some probability assigned to each result.
>> A complex result is understood to be one of these results.
>> Thus, a random process has the potential to produce a
>> complex result (with a certain probability). Many added
>> processes can also change probabilities of outcomes.
>> Changing probabilities does not require foresight, intelligence
>> or will. It isn't "illogical" for a process to produce the
>> results we know it can produce.
>>
>> And that's only part of where you are wrong. But it is
>> enough to invalidate your claim.

> You haven't shown any understanding of what I actually wrote;
> therefore your reply equates to a non-sequitur.

Actually, you're quote above is a fine example of a non sequitur
if you are using the word to describe logic. Study it.
Somebody's understanding or lack thereof does not make
their response a non sequitur in the logical sense. The words
before "therefore" do not logically lead to the words after.

Presumably, you instead mean that my comment does not address
your argument and so is irrelevant. It may be irrelevant to
what you intended to write but it addresses what you actually
did write in the context of previous writing. It specifically
addresses your obscession with the generic claims that random
cannot lead to non-random because they are "antonymic concepts".
You make this claim again and again and it is superficially
false.

> As for what you did write the same presupposes evolution true and goes

I did not even use the word evolution above. I refer generically
to random things that by their very nature must be capable
of producing non-random results some of the time. In fact, to
the extent that certain results are forbidden to occur by
a particular process, that process is non-random. A random
roll of a a pair of dice can show two sixes with a probability
of 1 in 36 rolls. It would be non-random behavior is that
never happened.

You keep pressing this simplistic black and white world
conception that random processes leading to non-random
results is fundamentally illogical as a general claim.
That general claim is wrong. It isn't wrong because of
evolution being true, it's wrong because that's the
fundamental nature of random processes. They can lead
unpredictable to a collection of results.

Random is about predictability of specific events.
It is not about patterns that emerge in the integration
of many random events.

You have a deeply flawed conception of what random
means and what random implies. You aren't alone.
It is the sort of confusion that makes people think
they can develop "systems" to win at the race track
or a casino. But the truth is above.

> on to say the logic is thus automatically sound. In short, your
> schtick begs the question while ignoring the fact of contradictory
> concepts employed by the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.

I don't rely on the evolution for my argument Ray.
You are making a general claim about whether random processes
leading to non-random results is illogical. I'm addressing
the general claim. I'm not referencing evolution to do
so. I'm referring to the fundamental nature of randomness
and probabilities of outcomes.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:66191e15-70cf-413c...@e1g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...

Ray, I love your clear thinking! That's what unrestrained thinking should
be, to recognize reality, accept facts, and apply our intellect to
understanding them.

These days I am reading "Kepler's Witch" by James A. Connor. I think you
would find it interesting. To see what a man in the prevailing
straightjacket of his times could achieve!

Rolf

> Ray
>
> [....]
>
>

[Bill]

On Jun 16, 1:05 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> These comments clearly indicate that you don't understand the issue at
> hand. Since the overall selection process is admittedly non-designed
> and fully material, even from a metaphysical standpoint, the term "non-
> random" contradicts the non-teleological admission and several other
> major concepts used to describe natural selection. The collective evo
> inability to understand this basic point of conceptual contradiction
> is the real issue here.

Ray, I want to be sure I understand your idiosyncratic use of
language. You seem to be saying that anything that lacks a goal is
random. Is that correct? If so, you might want to notice that that is
NOT the common usage of the term random. That's OK, we can readjust
the language to suit you, as long as you are clear about what you
want.

So, what does it mean for something to be teleological? To have a
goal? Can we say that an object moving in a gravitational field has
the "goal" of minimizing the integral of the difference between its
kinetic and potential energies throughout its motion? Can we say that
a dropped stone has a teleological goal of falling to the earth? If
you say yes, that's fine, we just know that the goal of every object
is to follow the laws of physics. Fine. That's not what many people
mean by a goal, but we can use the word that way in talking with you
if you like.

On the other hand, if you say no, you don't want to say that, for
example, a dropped stone has the goal of falling to earth, then your
use of "random" is quite unusual. If all those things following the
laws of physics do so without having a goal (ie non-teleologically)
and if you want to call non-teleological processes "random," then you
will be left with a huge set of phenomena which are entirely
predictable, but which you want to call random. We can adjust to that,
too, if you like, and use the word that way, as long as you are
consistent. By consistent I mean that if you want to use "random" to
mean "non-teleological" then you have to avoid using the connotations
of "unpredictable" that are associated with more traditional
definitions of "random." If you are going to use you own special
definitions of words, just tell us, and then stick to them
consistently.

Stick to them consistently, as in the case of "illogical." We now know
that when you say something is "illogical" you mean that it goes
against your intuition. That's fine. We can adapt to your definition.
It's just that you cannot let yourself forget that with your new
definition of illogical, it is quite possible for "illogical" things
to be true.

>
> I would say that some evos present do indeed understand but since evo
> authorities are on record as saying the process is non-random the
> description must be defended----no matter what. These authorities
> employ "non-random" almost always in conjunction with attempts to
> defeat the dreaded criticism that says diversity and human beings were
> produced by chance.

What dreaded criticism? Diversity and human beings were produced by
evolution, a process that combines chance and necessity.

>Since teleology is not involved in the production
> of life, past and present, the theory of evolution does indeed claim
> that we are the products of chance, error and accident.

No evolutionary biologist that I know denies that chance plays a great
role in evolution. Note that "plays a great role" is not the same as
"plays the only role."

>Therefore the
> "non-random" claim is a tool that belongs to the propaganda department
> of evolutionary theory. Since no Designer exists Atheists most
> certainly do believe that life was produced by chance alone every step
> of the way.

Well, if you redefine "random" to mean non-designed, then the
evolution of life was produced entirely by randomness. But then you
have to remember that when "evos" talk about chance and randomness
they are not using your definitions.

>The insertion of "non-random" within the evo cause-and-
> effect scheme contradicts all other surrounding concepts; cause:
> random mutation, *non-random,* mindless, unguided, undirected,
> unintelligent selection; effects: organized, ordered, complex); OR the
> propaganda scheme; cause: random mutation, mindless, unguided,
> undirected, unintelligent, *non-random* selection; effects: organized,
> ordered, complex.
>
> Note that *non-random,* in the propaganda scheme, precedes concepts
> relating effects that do not contradict, but contradict preceding
> terms relating causation. So the term "non-random" serves to not only
> defang the criticism of chance, but to make the scheme appear logical.
> But since the entire scheme is admittedly non-designed the appearance
> is false.

Your problem seems to be that evolutionists have had the audacity to
use words without regard to Ray Martinez's special definitions. Yes,
we agree that evolution is non-teleological. We are not trying to hide
that. You only think we are trying to hide it because we say that
evolution is not entirely the result of chance. That's because we
define "random" in such a way that predictable natural laws, non-
teleological as they are, are not random. But it's all a word game; as
long as you define your words and stick to a single definition we can
explain things to you. Just remember to stick to a single definition.
That's what seems to give you trouble.



>
> Ray

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/15/13 4:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> In a nutshell: The description of natural selection as a non-random
> process contradicts preceding random mutation and other terms
> describing the selection process; namely, mindless, unguided,
> undirected, and unintelligent. Moreover, terms accepted by
> Creationists and Darwinists that describe effects (diversity); namely,
> organized, order, and complexity contradict every term except non-
> random. Lastly, since the entire evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme
> is admittedly non-designed the pro-teleological term "non-random"
> contradicts said admission.

Ray, suppose you are a loan officer for a bank in Nevada. Someone comes
to you with a plan to start a new casino. He says, "On average, we
expect to get 1.5% of the money gambled on blackjack, 3% of the money
gambled on roulette, 8% of the money from slot machines," etc. And the
casino is at a location where it is sure to get lots of business.
Still, all of its expected income -- every last cent -- would come from
random events. Would you approve a business loan to start such a
casino, or is it your decision that the success of the casino would be
purely a matter of random chance, so you would not lend the bank's money?

[Dana Tweedy]

There is no reason to assume that "random" is the same as " not designed".
There are many known processes that are neither designed, or random. The
words used to describe natural selection, whatever you imagine them to be,
do not include "random".

> The collective evo
> inability to understand this basic point of conceptual contradiction
> is the real issue here.

There is no contradiction here, Ray. Unguided and not designed are not
the same as random.

>
> I would say that some evos present do indeed understand but since evo
> authorities are on record as saying the process is non-random the
> description must be defended----no matter what.

Unlike you, Ray, most people recognize that "authorities" are much less
important than facts. What an authority says is not important. what
is important is to understand that natural selection provides a non random
bias to which individuals in a population will survive. Since there there
is no evidence that this process is being controlled by a being, it is
considered not directed by any outside influence.

> These authorities
> employ "non-random" almost always in conjunction with attempts to
> defeat the dreaded criticism that says diversity and human beings were
> produced by chance.

That criticism is already defeated, because natural selection is not chance
and no one but those who wish to openly lie about the process would call it
that. You also keep assuming that diversity is something orderly, when
diversity is a sign of disorder.

> Since teleology is not involved in the production
> of life, past and present, the theory of evolution does indeed claim
> that we are the products of chance, error and accident.

And here we see Ray is willing to tell a bare faced lie. Humans, and
every other living thing are not claimed to be the product of chance,
error, and accident. They are the result of a natural process that
combines elements of random chance with non random selection. Evolution
as a process is no more random than gravity acts randomly to keep planets
orbiting the sun.

> Therefore the
> "non-random" claim is a tool that belongs to the propaganda department
> of evolutionary theory.

Wrong again, Ray. The fact that selection is non random is a simple
observation that anyone can make. The birds on the Galápagos Islands beak
sizes did not randomly change size when a drought made finding food more
difficult. The average beak size of the population changed as birds with
larger beaks survived more than those with smaller beaks. Dark morph
peppered moths did not randomly become more prevalent when the trees were
covered in soot, they became that way because birds were able to see, and
eat the white morph better.

The fact remains, natural selection does not act in a random fashion.

>
> Since no Designer exists Atheists most
> certainly do believe that life was produced by chance alone every step
> of the way.

Why would it matter what atheists believe? We are talking about science
here. You are using the fallacy of the false dichotomy again. There
are more choices than Supernatural designer to produce non random results.
Natural selection is not chance, Ray. You lie every time you repeat
that falsehood.

> The insertion of "non-random" within the evo cause-and-
> effect scheme contradicts all other surrounding concepts; cause:
> random mutation, *non-random,* mindless, unguided, undirected,
> unintelligent selection; effects: organized, ordered, complex); OR the
> propaganda scheme; cause: random mutation, mindless, unguided,
> undirected, unintelligent, *non-random* selection; effects: organized,
> ordered, complex.

Once more, you are lying through equivocation. Mindless and random are
not the same thing. Unguided and random are not the same thing. Every
description of natural selection, in every text book, and every scientific
paper confirms that natural selection is not random.

>
> Note that *non-random,* in the propaganda scheme, precedes concepts
> relating effects that do not contradict, but contradict preceding
> terms relating causation.

There is no propaganda scheme. That is your own ignorance and paranoia.

> So the term "non-random" serves to not only
> defang the criticism of chance, but to make the scheme appear logical.
> But since the entire scheme is admittedly non-designed the appearance
> is false.

There are no fangs to remove, as chance is not what natural selection is
about. There is no scheme, no dark conspiracy, just your own paranoid
ravings.


DJT

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 05:41:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill
<broger...@gmail.com>:

Nominated for several reasons, but mostly for clearly
synopsizing the issue of word meaning as related to mutual
comprehension.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[John Stockwell]

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:44:26 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> --random cause (mutation) + non-random cause (natural selection)
>
> produces organized complexity or ordered effects--
>
>
>
> In the above cause-and-effect scheme the final cause, or that which
>
> handles species lastly, is non-random. Thus non-random cause produces
>
> ordered effects (= logical).
>
>
>
> But Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins have criticized the general
>
> notion of non-random (or any synonym) producing ordered effects as
>
> illogical. The specific notion in mind would be guided or directed
>
> cause creating organized complexity or ordered effects (= logical).
>
>
>
> So we can say the general notion is indeed logical. This means the
>
> specific notion must also be logical. One cannot conclude against the
>
> latter since the same is a synonymous construction.
>
>
>
> But the issue here is not teleological cause-and-effect schemes, but
>
> the logic of natural selection----or that which is portrayed as non-
>
> random. Yet evolutionary authorities routinely describe the selection
>
> process as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (to name
>
> a few).
>
>
>
> The question then arises: How can the selection process be described
>
> as non-random yet mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and
>
> remain logical?

It's a non-linear process so it is capable of producing complexity as well
as order.

>
>
>
> I contend the concept of non-random contradicts the concepts of
>
> mindlessness, unguidedness, undirectedness, and unintelligence. And I
>
> contend that the general description of natural selection as a non-
>
> random process is maintained so the evolutionary cause-and-effect
>
> scheme is seen as logical and not antonymic.

Well, you are wrong, Ray. Go out and look at a thunderstorm sometime. There
is all sorts of structure there, but it is all heatflow, humidity, and airflow
governed by nonlinear equations.


>
>
>
> Ray

-John

[Dana Tweedy]

I'll second it, even though it won't do Ray any good...


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

I said what I meant and meant what I said (you produced a non-
sequitur).

> It may be irrelevant to
> what you intended to write but it addresses what you actually
> did write in the context of previous writing.

Strange way of acknowledging your non-sequitur.

> It specifically
> addresses your obsession with the generic claims that random

> cannot lead to non-random because they are "antonymic concepts".
> You make this claim again and again and it is superficially
> false.

Again, I'm not arguing "cannot" rather I'm pointing out "not logical."
The latter, of course, indicates or implies "cannot." Important
distinction.

> > As for what you did write the same presupposes evolution true....

>
> I did not even use the word evolution above.

That's why I said "presupposes evolution true."

> I refer generically
> to random things that by their very nature must be capable
> of producing non-random results some of the time. In fact, to
> the extent that certain results are forbidden to occur by
> a particular process, that process is non-random. A random
> roll of a a pair of dice can show two sixes with a probability
> of 1 in 36 rolls. It would be non-random behavior is that
> never happened.

IF a die roll is truly random then a pair of sixes, along with every
other possibility, has the exact same probability of showing each and
everytime a roll is made. Do you agree?

> You keep pressing this simplistic black and white world
> conception that random processes leading to non-random
> results is fundamentally illogical as a general claim.

These comments imply said general claim to be false based on two
subjective evaluations (1) "simplistic"; and (2) "black and white
world conception."

> That general claim is wrong. It isn't wrong because of
> evolution being true, it's wrong because that's the
> fundamental nature of random processes. They can lead
> unpredictable to a collection of results.

False. The result cannot logically be described as non-random. Random
and non-random do not correspond.

A group of monkeys, for example, set before typewriters, have never
typed a word (space/a or A/space; or space/I/space). If it were to
happen then the same would be accidental.

> Random is about predictability of specific events.
> It is not about patterns that emerge in the integration
> of many random events.

Random means "not designed to occur."

> You have a deeply flawed conception of what random
> means and what random implies.

That's my exact complaint concerning you.

> You aren't alone.
> It is the sort of confusion that makes people think
> they can develop "systems" to win at the race track
> or a casino. But the truth is above.
>

> > and goes on to say the logic is thus automatically sound. In short,

> > your schtick begs the question while ignoring the fact of contradictory
> > concepts employed by the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.
>
> I don't rely on the evolution for my argument Ray.
> You are making a general claim about whether random processes
> leading to non-random results is illogical. I'm addressing
> the general claim. I'm not referencing evolution to do
> so. I'm referring to the fundamental nature of randomness
> and probabilities of outcomes.

Which cannot be described as non-random or designed.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 18, 2:22�pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:44:26 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > --random cause (mutation) + non-random cause (natural selection)
>
> > produces organized complexity or ordered effects--
>
> > In the above cause-and-effect scheme the final cause, or that which
>
> > handles species lastly, is non-random. Thus non-random cause produces
>
> > ordered effects (= logical).
>
> > But Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins have criticized the general
>
> > notion of non-random (or any synonym) producing ordered effects as
>
> > illogical. The specific notion in mind would be guided or directed
>
> > cause creating organized complexity or ordered effects (= logical).
>
> > So we can say the general notion is indeed logical. This means the
>
> > specific notion must also be logical. One cannot conclude against the
>
> > latter since the same is a synonymous construction.
>
> > But the issue here is not teleological cause-and-effect schemes, but
>
> > the logic of natural selection----or that which is portrayed as non-
>
> > random. Yet evolutionary authorities routinely describe the selection
>
> > process as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (to name
>
> > a few).
>
> > The question then arises: How can the selection process be described
>
> > as non-random yet mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and
>
> > remain logical?
>
> It's a non-linear process so it is capable of producing complexity as well
> as order.

By pointing out "non-linear" our Evolutionist refers to the
mindlessness of divergence (cause) then says the same can produce
order and complexity (antonymic effects). Again, in response, I point
out that mindlessness producing order (= illogical); or mind producing
order (= logical).

> > I contend the concept of non-random contradicts the concepts of
>
> > mindlessness, unguidedness, undirectedness, and unintelligence. And I
>
> > contend that the general description of natural selection as a non-
>
> > random process is maintained so the evolutionary cause-and-effect
>
> > scheme is seen as logical and not antonymic.
>
> Well, you are wrong, Ray. Go out and look at a thunderstorm sometime. There
> is all sorts of structure there, but it is all heatflow, humidity, and airflow
> governed by nonlinear equations.

Restatement (assuming your facts and their expression correct).
Extrication from illogic has not occurred.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 16, 1:45�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gross illogic, or a demand for an exemption from sound logic. Since
Naturalism and evolutionary theory reject teleology, random always

means "not designed to occur."

> There are many known processes that are neither designed, or random. � The
> words used to describe natural selection, whatever you imagine them to be,
> do not include "random".
> > �The collective evo
> > inability to understand this basic point of conceptual contradiction
> > is the real issue here.
>
> There is no contradiction here, Ray. � Unguided and not designed are not
> the same as random.

Since they are the same the only issue, like I observed, is your
inability to understand the basic or fundamental point of conceptual
contradiction. Or perhaps you are arguing for a special exemption from
sound logic? Either way your attempt to stipulate extrication from
contradiction is explained.

> > I would say that some evos present do indeed understand but since evo
> > authorities are on record as saying the process is non-random the
> > description must be defended----no matter what.
>
> Unlike you, Ray, most people recognize that "authorities" are much less
> important than facts. �What an authority says is not important. � � what
> is important is to understand that natural selection provides a non random
> bias to which individuals in a population will survive. �Since there there
> is no evidence that this process is being controlled by a being, it is
> considered not directed by any outside influence.

Which makes the entire process random or not designed to occur. Your
last point of fact is my only point. And this point of fact
contradicts the claim of non-random selection.

Ray

> > These authorities
> > employ "non-random" almost always in conjunction with attempts to
> > defeat the dreaded criticism that says diversity and human beings were
> > produced by chance.
>
> That criticism is already defeated, because natural selection is not chance
> and no one but those who wish to openly lie about the process would call it
> that. � �You also keep assuming that diversity is something orderly, when
> diversity is a sign of disorder.
>
> > Since teleology is not involved in the production
> > of life, past and present, the theory of evolution does indeed claim
> > that we are the products of chance, error and accident.
>
> And here we see Ray is willing to tell a bare faced lie. � Humans, and
> every other living thing are not claimed to be the product of chance,
> error, and accident. � They are the result of a natural process that
> combines elements of random chance with non random selection. � �Evolution
> as a process is no more random than gravity acts randomly to keep planets
> orbiting the sun.
>
> > �Therefore the
> > "non-random" claim is a tool that belongs to the propaganda department
> > of evolutionary theory.
>
> Wrong again, Ray. � The fact that selection is non random is a simple

> observation that anyone can make. �The birds on the Gal�pagos Islands beak

> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---

[Roger Shrubber]

Again, no I did not. What I wrote was logically valid.
The conclusion follows from the premise.

> > It may be irrelevant to
> > what you intended to write but it addresses what you actually
> > did write in the context of previous writing.
>
> Strange way of acknowledging your non-sequitur.

Strange way of reading.

> > It specifically
> > addresses your obsession with the generic claims that random
> > cannot lead to non-random because they are "antonymic concepts".
> > You make this claim again and again and it is superficially
> > false.
>
> Again, I'm not arguing "cannot" rather I'm pointing out "not logical."
> The latter, of course, indicates or implies "cannot." Important
> distinction.

No it doesn't. Again you apply equivocation between "not logical"
in your loosy-goosy sense of "counter-intuitive to Ray" and
"not logical" in the sense of invalid deduction.

> > > As for what you did write the same presupposes evolution true....
>
> > I did not even use the word evolution above.

> That's why I said "presupposes evolution true."

No it doesn't. It is agnostic to the whole concept
of evolution. It rests independent of evolution. It
does not depend on it in the slightest, does not
refer to it, imply it, borrow from it, or lean on it.

> > I refer generically
> > to random things that by their very nature must be capable
> > of producing non-random results some of the time. In fact, to
> > the extent that certain results are forbidden to occur by
> > a particular process, that process is non-random. A random
> > roll of a a pair of dice can show two sixes with a probability
> > of 1 in 36 rolls. It would be non-random behavior is that
> > never happened.

> IF a die roll is truly random then a pair of sixes, along with every
> other possibility, has the exact same probability of showing each and
> everytime a roll is made. Do you agree?

Specifically, if you color the dice, the chance of a red 3 and
a green 4 is as likely as a red 6 and a green 6 but you also
have a red 4 and a green 3 which is considered a 3 and a 4
so in that sense, a 3 and a 4 is twice as likely as pair of sixes.
With that clarification, we agree.

> > You keep pressing this simplistic black and white world
> > conception that random processes leading to non-random
> > results is fundamentally illogical as a general claim.


> These comments imply said general claim to be false based on two
> subjective evaluations (1) "simplistic"; and (2) "black and white
> world conception."

I'm not "implying" I'm claiming. Flat out. How you possibly
believe that "implication" is the right word amazes me.

> > That general claim is wrong. It isn't wrong because of
> > evolution being true, it's wrong because that's the
> > fundamental nature of random processes. They can lead
> > unpredictable to a collection of results.

> False. The result cannot logically be described as non-random. Random
> and non-random do not correspond.


> A group of monkeys, for example, set before typewriters, have never
> typed a word (space/a or A/space; or space/I/space). If it were to
> happen then the same would be accidental.

Randomly shuffled cards sometimes deal out royal flushes.
Royal Flushes fit your concept of ordered complexity.
By definition, random processes have to sometimes produce
ordered complexity. There's no escape.
Random processes does not prohibit non-random result.
You completely misunderstand what Random means.

> > Random is about predictability of specific events.
> > It is not about patterns that emerge in the integration
> > of many random events.

> Random means "not designed to occur."

Not as generally used by science. But random is an
ugly word that has many definitions. Some of those
definitions even contradict each other. Not only
do you equivocate between the different contexts, you
apparently do so without even understanding what the
word means to scientists in the contexts you borrow.

> > You have a deeply flawed conception of what random
> > means and what random implies.

> That's my exact complaint concerning you.

That's because you try to redefine the word in ways
that are not used by scientist and then misconstrue
what they say when they use common and accepted
definitions that are different from the one you use.

> > You aren't alone.
> > It is the sort of confusion that makes people think
> > they can develop "systems" to win at the race track
> > or a casino. But the truth is above.

> > > and goes on to say the logic is thus automatically sound. In short,
> > > your schtick begs the question while ignoring the fact of contradictory
> > > concepts employed by the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.
>
> > I don't rely on the evolution for my argument Ray.
> > You are making a general claim about whether random processes
> > leading to non-random results is illogical. I'm addressing
> > the general claim. I'm not referencing evolution to do
> > so. I'm referring to the fundamental nature of randomness
> > and probabilities of outcomes.
>
> Which cannot be described as non-random or designed.

You do know that when a dictionary has a set of entries
with numbers in front of them that these correspond to
different meanings of a word? They are not all synonymous
and interchangeable.

[Ray Martinez]

No, not logical and counterintuitive in the sense of invalid
epistemology. In essence you're defending the use of adjectives,
understood universally to describe teleological paradigms, as
logically valid to describe anti-teleological paradigms as well. I'm
calling this "confusion" (the fusion of contrary or contradictory
concepts) which is illogical.

> > > > As for what you did write the same presupposes evolution true....
>
> > > I did not even use the word evolution above.
> > That's why I said "presupposes evolution true."
>
> No it doesn't. It is agnostic to the whole concept
> of evolution. It rests independent of evolution. It
> does not depend on it in the slightest, does not
> refer to it, imply it, borrow from it, or lean on it.

"It isn't 'illogical' for a process to produce the results we know it

can produce" (Roger Shrubber). In the relevant paragraph this was your
concluding thought. Therefore everything written before presupposes
evolution true?

Your commentary (relevant paragraph) uses a stipulative meaning for
"random" (which is valid), one that allows non-random results. How is
this anything other than question begging?

But again, I'm using an epistemological definition and understanding
of "random" (not designed to occur). Since evo authorities accept the
epistemological understanding you cannot use the stipulative meaning,
however valid, as proof that I do not understand the meaning of
random, or as proof that the stipulation refutes my arguments.

> > > I refer generically
> > > to random things that by their very nature must be capable
> > > of producing non-random results some of the time. In fact, to
> > > the extent that certain results are forbidden to occur by
> > > a particular process, that process is non-random. A random
> > > roll of a a pair of dice can show two sixes with a probability
> > > of 1 in 36 rolls. It would be non-random behavior is that
> > > never happened.
> > IF a die roll is truly random then a pair of sixes, along with every
> > other possibility, has the exact same probability of showing each and
> > everytime a roll is made. Do you agree?
>
> Specifically, if you color the dice, the chance of a red 3 and
> a green 4 is as likely as a red 6 and a green 6 but you also
> have a red 4 and a green 3 which is considered a 3 and a 4
> so in that sense, a 3 and a 4 is twice as likely as pair of sixes.
> With that clarification, we agree.

So a pair of dice, when rolled, is designed to produce a finite number
of possible outcomes. Do you agree?

Ray

(Will finish replying ASAP)

[Dana Tweedy]

You assert, without any reason, that "mindlessness" cannot produce order,
or complexity, despite many undisputed counter examples. Thus your claim
of antonymic effects is refuted.

> Again, in response, I point
> out that mindlessness producing order (= illogical); or mind producing
> order (= logical).

And again, everyone else has been showing you that expectation and logic
are not equivalent. A being with a mind may, or may not produce order, but
there is no reason a mindless process cannot produce order as well.

>
>>> I contend the concept of non-random contradicts the concepts of
>>
>>> mindlessness, unguidedness, undirectedness, and unintelligence. And I
>>
>>> contend that the general description of natural selection as a non-
>>
>>> random process is maintained so the evolutionary cause-and-effect
>>
>>> scheme is seen as logical and not antonymic.
>>
>> Well, you are wrong, Ray. Go out and look at a thunderstorm sometime. There
>> is all sorts of structure there, but it is all heatflow, humidity, and airflow
>> governed by nonlinear equations.
>
> Restatement (assuming your facts and their expression correct).

The thunderstorm is an example of what you claim cannot happen. That means
the facts are correct, and you are wrong.

> Extrication from illogic has not occurred.

One does not require "extraction" from something that does not exist.
Going against what you, Ray, in your naive ignorance, expect, is not
illogical.

DJT
>
> Ray

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, please try to remember that you know nothing about logic, before you
try to invoke what you imagine to be "sound logic". What I said is true,
and not a demand for exemption from anything.

> Since
> Naturalism and evolutionary theory reject teleology, random always
> means "not designed to occur."

Once again, Ray, before you try to claim what something means, you should
at least try to become familiar with the subject, and terms used.
Science, which includes evolution does not rely on philosophic naturalism,
it just uses methodological naturalism. That means it follows where the
evidence leads. Teleology is not supported by the evidence, not rejected
out of hand. Furthermore, no scientist I am aware of defines random to
mean "not designed to occur". Every natural process that science knows
about is not known to be designed by a supernatural being, but no scientist
would ever describe them as a random happenstance.

Condensation is not known to be designed, but no one would claim that rain
forms at random. Likewise, Gravity is not known to be designed, yet
planets are not described as having random orbits. Heat and air currents
are not known to be designed, but no meteorologist would claim storms form
at random.

>
>> There are many known processes that are neither designed, or random. The
>> words used to describe natural selection, whatever you imagine them to be,
>> do not include "random".
>>> The collective evo
>>> inability to understand this basic point of conceptual contradiction
>>> is the real issue here.
>>
>> There is no contradiction here, Ray. Unguided and not designed are not
>> the same as random.
>
> Since they are the same the only issue, like I observed, is your
> inability to understand the basic or fundamental point of conceptual
> contradiction.

As I explained above, there is no contradiction. You are equivocating two
different things. I understand perfectly that you are playing word
games, rather than admit you are wrong.

> Or perhaps you are arguing for a special exemption from
> sound logic?

I don't ask for exemptions from sound logic. You just have no idea what
constitutes sound logic. You seem to think that logic is whatever you
think is reasonable to you. Since you are miles away from what normal
people find sensible, and your reasoning abilities are non existent, you
get some very wacky ideas of what is "sound logic".

> Either way your attempt to stipulate extrication from
> contradiction is explained.

Why would I want extricate myself from a contradiction that does not exist?
Rather than reconsider your statement, and see your own error, you make up
some odd roles that you expect me to follow. Sorry, Ray, but reality does
not follow your script.

>>> I would say that some evos present do indeed understand but since evo
>>> authorities are on record as saying the process is non-random the
>>> description must be defended----no matter what.
>>
>> Unlike you, Ray, most people recognize that "authorities" are much less
>> important than facts. What an authority says is not important. what
>> is important is to understand that natural selection provides a non random
>> bias to which individuals in a population will survive. Since there there
>> is no evidence that this process is being controlled by a being, it is
>> considered not directed by any outside influence.
>
> Which makes the entire process random or not designed to occur.

Here again you are both equivocating, and using your personal definitions.
No one but you defies random as "not designed to occur". Random, to a
scientist means

"Relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a
probability distribution."

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton
Mifflin.

> Your
> last point of fact is my only point. And this point of fact
> contradicts the claim of non-random selection.
>

This last point shows you are being dishonest and/or incredibly idiotic.
The process is not planned (as far as can be determined by science). But it
is decidedly non random.

DJT

> Ray
>
>>> These authorities
>>> employ "non-random" almost always in conjunction with attempts to
>>> defeat the dreaded criticism that says diversity and human beings were
>>> produced by chance.
>>
>> That criticism is already defeated, because natural selection is not chance
>> and no one but those who wish to openly lie about the process would call it
>> that. You also keep assuming that diversity is something orderly, when
>> diversity is a sign of disorder.
>>
>>> Since teleology is not involved in the production
>>> of life, past and present, the theory of evolution does indeed claim
>>> that we are the products of chance, error and accident.
>>
>> And here we see Ray is willing to tell a bare faced lie. Humans, and
>> every other living thing are not claimed to be the product of chance,
>> error, and accident. They are the result of a natural process that
>> combines elements of random chance with non random selection. Evolution
>> as a process is no more random than gravity acts randomly to keep planets
>> orbiting the sun.
>>
>>> Therefore the
>>> "non-random" claim is a tool that belongs to the propaganda department
>>> of evolutionary theory.
>>
>> Wrong again, Ray. The fact that selection is non random is a simple

>> observation that anyone can make. The birds on the Galápagos Islands beak

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Roger Shrubber]

On Jun 20, 11:49�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:26�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 9:09�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, 5:12�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote:

snip for focus

> > > > > As for what you did write the same presupposes evolution true....

> > > > I did not even use the word evolution above.
> > > That's why I said "presupposes evolution true."

> > No it doesn't. It is agnostic to the whole concept
> > of evolution. It rests independent of evolution. It
> > does not depend on it in the slightest, does not
> > refer to it, imply it, borrow from it, or lean on it.

> "It isn't 'illogical' for a process to produce the results we know it
> can produce" (Roger Shrubber). In the relevant paragraph this was your
> concluding thought. Therefore everything written before presupposes
> evolution true?

You could use evolution as one specific example of something
that occurs despite you claiming it is illogical. There
are many alternative specifics that could be used. But
I did not invoke evolution to make the point because it
is a general point. It is not dependent on the example
of evolution or any other specific example of a thing
that happens that you presuppose to be "counter-intuitive"
or "illogical".

Accepting the point does not imply accepting evolution
to be true. That truth needs to be established independently.

> Your commentary (relevant paragraph) uses a stipulative meaning for
> "random" (which is valid), one that allows non-random results. How is
> this anything other than question begging?

Good use of begging the question but, as it is a definition
there isn't a problem. I'm not so much trying to generate
an elaborate proof. I'm exanding on the very definition of
random in a way that hopefully illuminates why your
assertions about random processes and non-random results
is ill considered. Again, it is within the very definition
of random that results are apriori unpredictable. It is
an immediate consequence of this that non-random results
(in the sense of having special or unlikely ordering)
are one of the possible outcomes. This result bothers you
and _seems_ wrong but stands up to analysis. Upon
reflection, it is an obvious necessity. If you desire
to do so, you can reword it a few times until it becomes
a tautology but that only means it becomes an obvious
truth. I don't see the flaw in seeking out perspectives
that make a truth more obvious than it initially was.
But it is just a clearer perspective, not an alteration
of what was always there but was perhaps misunderstood.

> But again, I'm using an epistemological definition and understanding
> of "random" (not designed to occur). Since evo authorities accept the
> epistemological understanding you cannot use the stipulative meaning,
> however valid, as proof that I do not understand the meaning of
> random, or as proof that the stipulation refutes my arguments.

One can design something to have random behavior. One can
design something to have non-random behavior.

I really have no idea who "evo authorities" are and am
not responsible for every casual usage of random or
improper invocation of things teleological or not.
However I do agree that there are random processes
that - to the best of our ability to tell - occur without
the intervention of any guiding intelligence and awareness.
These would include copying errors in DNA replication
and radioactive decay, among others. But they are
different things, random and 'not designed' because
you can also have random from a designed process.

You can't simplify things to where "not designed"
and "random" are interchangeable in all contexts.
It does not work. They are not identical.

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:506720877393389257.6777...@freenews.netfront.net...

I believe we are up against something more than plain, 'naive ignorance'.
The issue is life or death for Ray's grand project, to tear down "the
foundation laid by Darwin making everything built on top tumble"
That argument is built on Ray's personal definitions that will constitute a
considerable portion of his book.

The way I see it, randomness is one of those concepts man has made in his
quest for understanding the world, and to create a universal,
uncontroversial 'language' for.

Therefore, randomness is applicable to any number of objects or processes,
and always have an explicit, universally agreed upon, meaning.

In this however, what we see is a case where Ray appears alone in his
interpretation of the meaning of random and how it applies to the world in
which we live. Against a considerable number of qualified professionals that
disagree with him. (The vast majority of which are of course not seen at
t.o.)

A most popular way of layman's thinking about randomness is the shuffling of
cards,ø or dice rolls to exemplify his thoughts.

But randomness doesn't immediately imply disorder. Disorder is just one of
the orders a subject may posess.

I prefer using numbers instead of cards or dice. So why not use the
perfectly ordered(?) sequence of numbers, from 1 up to - infinity?
But let us be modest, and take the series 1 - 10. The numbers are of course
just place holders and can represent anything whatever.

We determine that one specific sequence represent our concept of what is
order. But tjat choice is an arbitrary one, and in any particular case might
be any number between 001 and 100.

But what does it matter? Exposing our numbers to a random process, any
combination is equally likely to occur. Therefore, I claim that randomness
produce order, and can do it all the time. Any particular order may be the
product of randomness - or it can be the product of 'design', i.e.
intelligent intervention. If I decide "the number is 666", that is ID!
Lotteries depend on randomess and sooner or later, agains the odds a hit
sends a huge amount of $$$ some lucky person's way.)

1. Right or wrong?
2. Is Ray capable of making a reasoned argument in this manner, or must he
always equivocate?
3. I contrast to Ray, I have no reason to seek any particular meaning of the
words used in formal logic and related subjects, I want to get at the core,
THE proper meaning, in the same way that there is very little disagreement
about the meaning of words like hot and warm. They may be used in different
contexts, like I say 'it is hot' whereas another person may say "I am
freezing."

(All that is of course not in any way about evolution, I only note my
opinion that while a common creationist argument is that the existence of a
particular protein caused by randomness is beyond probability, I tend to
view it as just one of the options offered by randomness, and, might just as
well be the first as the last 'selection'.) But I do'nt know, it is outside
of 'my business'.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:e157454c-fab3-457a...@ow4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Random does not rule out or forbid any combination. At least as fas as
rolling dice or shuffling cards are concerned.
That means any possible outcome = order is possible. Or do you deny that?

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:efd95b24-8f40-49ae...@wf10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

How do you discriminate betwen order and disorder? What are their
characteristiscs?
How do you separate the one from the other?

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/15/2013 7:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> In essence, I'm saying that evolutionary theory asks us to believe
> that life (organized complexity) is the product of a cause-and-effect
> scheme that employs antonyms (= contradiction). The concepts of random
> and mindlessness are NOT commensurately seen in effects .

Roger is doing a better job than I would (and with more patience)
regarding the general topic of randomness and order. But I'm still
waiting to hear how this applies to evolution.

Evolution is about how life forms that are already ordered and complex
become altered over many generations, yielding somewhat-different
ordered and complex life forms. It's about how the ancestor population
of deer, moose, elk and caribou diversified into the several dozen
species we see now.

Biologists think that future populations come to have the traits of the
ancestors that produced them. If those with greater size survive and
reproduce in greater numbers on average, we expect the population to
become larger on average. Shorter ears, thinner fur, a longer toe or
tongue. We call that "bias" Natural Selection, and it can skew the
population toward some traits whether we call it "random" (for
"unguided") or "non-random" (because it favors one result over another).

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/19/13 5:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...] Again, in response, I point

> out that mindlessness producing order (= illogical); or mind producing
> order (= logical).

Again I point out that mindlessness producing order is something that
happens. Reality, however illogical you consider it, is still real. So
it does not matter whether or not evolution seems illogical to you; it
happens regardless.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 16, 5:41�am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 1:05�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > These comments clearly indicate that you don't understand the issue at
> > hand. Since the overall selection process is admittedly non-designed
> > and fully material, even from a metaphysical standpoint, the term "non-
> > random" contradicts the non-teleological admission and several other
> > major concepts used to describe natural selection. The collective evo
> > inability to understand this basic point of conceptual contradiction
> > is the real issue here.
>
> Ray, I want to be sure I understand your idiosyncratic use of
> language. You seem to be saying that anything that lacks a goal is
> random. Is that correct?

I'm saying something specific (the evo cause-and-effect scheme), not
anything other, whether specific or general, contains two conceptual
contradictions and one epistemological contradiction. And I haven't
used the word "goal" or any synonym. So your idiosyncratic claim is
false.

Epistemological contradiction: non-random (designed to occur)
selection yet evolutionary theory completely rejects teleology (the
main claim of Victorian Creationism).

1. Conceptual contradiction: non-random selection yet the same is also
described as mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent.

2. Conceptual contradiction: random, mindless, unguided, undirected
and unintelligent causation producing antonymic organized complexity
or ordered effects.

In order for you to extricate the ToE from these contradictions
idiosyncratic use of language, including valid stipulative meanings,
becomes a necessity, however. I think it quite important to remind
that the ToE and its interpretive philosophy does not allow any pro-
teleological interpretation or conclusion; therefore the
contradictions are real and objective: "non-random" has correspondence
with teleology, extrication from contradiction is not possible.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 5:41 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 1:05 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> These comments clearly indicate that you don't understand the issue at
>>> hand. Since the overall selection process is admittedly non-designed
>>> and fully material, even from a metaphysical standpoint, the term "non-
>>> random" contradicts the non-teleological admission and several other
>>> major concepts used to describe natural selection. The collective evo
>>> inability to understand this basic point of conceptual contradiction
>>> is the real issue here.
>>
>> Ray, I want to be sure I understand your idiosyncratic use of
>> language. You seem to be saying that anything that lacks a goal is
>> random. Is that correct?
>
> I'm saying something specific (the evo cause-and-effect scheme), not
> anything other, whether specific or general, contains two conceptual
> contradictions and one epistemological contradiction.

Of course, that contradiction is only your own error. Because you don't
have any idea what you are talking about, you mistake rational ideas as
contradictions.

> And I haven't
> used the word "goal" or any synonym. So your idiosyncratic claim is
> false.
>

No, the claim is correct because you keep using word with personal meanings
very different from how anyone else uses them. That is what idiosyncratic
means.

> Epistemological contradiction: non-random (designed to occur)
> selection yet evolutionary theory completely rejects teleology (the
> main claim of Victorian Creationism).

First of all, no one but you equates random with "not designed to occur".
Selection is described as non random because it has a definite bias toward
a particular outcome. It doesn't matter to the mutation if that selection
is artificial, as in the case of human selection for a particular trait
(more milk production, leaner meat, or less skittishness), or by the
mindless environmental changes a population is exposed to. Both are non
random selection, even if the latter is not planned, and totally without a
mind.

Second, teleology is rejected by science for the practical reason that it
can't be tested, and is an entirely subjective opinion. Science even in
Victorian times was practiced without teleology.

>
> 1. Conceptual contradiction: non-random selection yet the same is also
> described as mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent.
>

And as has been explained to you, over and over, with great patience,
random and mindless are NOT the same thing. An unguided, undirected, and
unintelligent process is not necessarily random in its effects. You have
been given numerous examples from real life illustrating this point, but
you still keep falling into the same pitfall.

> 2. Conceptual contradiction: random, mindless, unguided, undirected
> and unintelligent causation producing antonymic organized complexity
> or ordered effects.

And again, you have been provided with numerous examples from real life
where mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (but NOT RANDOM),
processes have been shown to produce an organized and complex result.
What is the point if you keep ignoring reality to preserve your obviously
false premises?

>
> In order for you to extricate the ToE from these contradictions
> idiosyncratic use of language, including valid stipulative meanings,
> becomes a necessity, however.

Ray, there are no contradictions. What you claim to be contradictory are
actually seen quite often in real life. That means your assumption must be
wrong. Why not, instead of blaming reality for not meeting your
expectations, you consider your expectations might be faulty?

> I think it quite important to remind
> that the ToE and its interpretive philosophy does not allow any pro-
> teleological interpretation or conclusion;

The theory of evolution is not a philosophy, it is, as the name implies, a
theory. Your objection is not with evolution ,but with the whole idea of
empiricism. You want reality to bend to your wishes, and make teleological
assumptions practical solutions. The problem with that is teleology can't
possibly be tested, and either confirmed, or refuted. That is why it was
abandoned by thinking persons long ago, as a way of seeking objective
answers.

If there were any objective evidence consistent with your theological
beliefs, science, including biology would have no choice than to accept
those findings. The converse is also true. No matter how much someone
may want a literal reading of Genesis to be true, the cold, hard, objective
evidence doesn't support it.

> therefore the
> contradictions are real and objective:

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, Ray. That is a true
non sequitur.

> "non-random" has correspondence
> with teleology, extrication from contradiction is not possible.
>

Objective reality demonstrates otherwise. Non random findings are very
much consistent with non teleological processes. You have been provided
with many examples confirming this. You, on the other hand have produced
nothing to refute those examples.

DJT

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Ray Martinez]

List words that are understood to convey "not designed to occur"?

> Selection is described as non random because it has a definite bias toward
>
> a particular outcome. It doesn't matter to the mutation if that selection
>
> is artificial, as in the case of human selection for a particular trait
>
> (more milk production, leaner meat, or less skittishness), or by the
>
> mindless environmental changes a population is exposed to. Both are non
>
> random selection, even if the latter is not planned, and totally without a
>
> mind.

Our Evolutionist conveys non-random to have a unique meaning (unplanned and mindless).

My observation that the delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, as opposed to God, is well supported.

> Second, teleology is rejected by science for the practical reason that it
>
> can't be tested, and is an entirely subjective opinion. Science even in
>
> Victorian times was practiced without teleology.

No evo scholar in the world denies that science before Darwin accepted teleology. The degree of absurdity seen is caused by the degree of quality seen in my arguments.

> >
>
> > 1. Conceptual contradiction: non-random selection yet the same is also
>
> > described as mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent.
>
> >
>
>
>
> And as has been explained to you, over and over, with great patience,
>
> random and mindless are NOT the same thing.

No one said they were "the same thing," for that would be impossible.

The denial or "explanation" (as you call it) has been rejected on grounds that it is ad hoc, contradiction remains.

In the context of evolutionary causation both terms must be *synonymous* or contradiction is present. Moreover, all terms in the causation scheme must by as such or contradiction is present.

> An unguided, undirected, and
>
> unintelligent process is not necessarily random in its effects. You have
>
> been given numerous examples from real life illustrating this point, but
>
> you still keep falling into the same pitfall.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2. Conceptual contradiction: random, mindless, unguided, undirected
>
> > and unintelligent causation producing antonymic organized complexity
>
> > or ordered effects.
>
>
>
>
>
> And again, you have been provided with numerous examples from real life
>
> where mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (but NOT RANDOM),
>
> processes have been shown to produce an organized and complex result.
>
> What is the point if you keep ignoring reality to preserve your obviously
>
> false premises?

You've misunderstood the state of the argument. We're talking about the logic of the proposition, not its alleged factuality. You're saying the same is logical because its true, which is question begging. I'm saying terms used to describe the evo cause-and-effect scheme contradict each other, terms used to describe effects, and the epistemological restriction forbidding support of teleology.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

For what purpose? Random, as used by scientists does not mean "not
designed to occur". Why would I want to collect of list of words that
don't apply to "random"?

>
>> Selection is described as non random because it has a definite bias toward
>>
>> a particular outcome. It doesn't matter to the mutation if that selection
>>
>> is artificial, as in the case of human selection for a particular trait
>>
>> (more milk production, leaner meat, or less skittishness), or by the
>>
>> mindless environmental changes a population is exposed to. Both are non
>>
>> random selection, even if the latter is not planned, and totally without a
>>
>> mind.
>
> Our Evolutionist conveys non-random to have a unique meaning (unplanned and mindless).

Ray, you are wrong again. I did not "convey" any such thing. "Non
random" in this context means "biased toward a particular outcome".
Planning, and possessing a mind are entirely irrelevant to this meaning
of non random.

>
> My observation that the delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, as opposed to God, is well supported.

Your unsupported assertion is no more supported now, than it had been
before. Since I did not do what you claimed, your assertion of
"delusion" once again fails.

>
>
>> Second, teleology is rejected by science for the practical reason that it
>>
>> can't be tested, and is an entirely subjective opinion. Science even in
>>
>> Victorian times was practiced without teleology.
>
> No evo scholar in the world denies that science before Darwin accepted teleology.

What 'evo scholar' ever claimed that science ever accepted teleology in
the first place? Anyone who is familiar with science and how it's
done will understand that teleology is not part of science.

> The degree of absurdity seen is caused by the degree of quality seen in my arguments.

Since you haven't produced any "quality" in your arguments, there can
hardly be any "absurdity" in my pointing out you are wrong.

Can you cite one single "evo scholar" (however you define that) who
claimed that science ever accepted teleology?

>
>>>
>>
>>> 1. Conceptual contradiction: non-random selection yet the same is also
>>
>>> described as mindless, unguided, undirected and unintelligent.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And as has been explained to you, over and over, with great patience,
>>
>> random and mindless are NOT the same thing.
>
> No one said they were "the same thing," for that would be impossible.

Ray, your entire "argument" is based on equivocating mindless and
random. YOU have been insisting all this time they are the same thing.

>
> The denial or "explanation" (as you call it) has been rejected on grounds that it is ad hoc, contradiction remains.

Ray, just because you refuse to see your error does not mean you can
reject something out of hand. Calling a fact "ad hoc" does not mean it
goes away, or is not a devastating refutation of your claim.

>
> In the context of evolutionary causation both terms must be *synonymous* or contradiction is present.

Ray, even if they were "synonymous", synonyms are not exact matches for
meaning. At most, they are only similar in meaning. In the case of
"random" and "mindless" they are not even fairly close synonyms, in the
way they are used in science.

The fact that a mindless process does not have to be random totally
invalidates any of the house of cards you've built on it.

> Moreover, all terms in the causation scheme must by as such or contradiction is present.

Once again, the "terms" used are not nearly as important as the facts.
English is a flexible language, and imprecise terms are often tossed
around. If you use the causal, non precise meaning of "random" to
equate with "mindless" you can make the claims you are making, but not
if you use the terms with intellectual rigor.

The "causation scheme" as you call it, for adaptive evolution is an
observed process, involving mutations caused by randomly occurring
mutations being filtered by decidedly non random selection. The fact
that neither the mutations or the selection have the capacity for a
mind, or that they are not guided by any known outside force, does not
mean the process is random happenstance. Equivocating the words
"random" and "unguided" does not make the process stop working, or make
the observations of evolution happening in real life disappear.

>
>> An unguided, undirected, and
>>
>> unintelligent process is not necessarily random in its effects. You have
>>
>> been given numerous examples from real life illustrating this point, but
>>
>> you still keep falling into the same pitfall.

And as I've pointed out, you keep falling.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. Conceptual contradiction: random, mindless, unguided, undirected
>>
>>> and unintelligent causation producing antonymic organized complexity
>>
>>> or ordered effects.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And again, you have been provided with numerous examples from real life
>>
>> where mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent (but NOT RANDOM),
>>
>> processes have been shown to produce an organized and complex result.
>>
>> What is the point if you keep ignoring reality to preserve your obviously
>>
>> false premises?
>
> You've misunderstood the state of the argument.

On the contrary. I've understood it quite well, and I understand you
can't offer a reasonable response. That's why you make false claims
like the above.

> We're talking about the logic of the proposition, not its alleged factuality.

No, you are talking about your personal and naive assumptions. You have
no idea about the "logic" or how logic is used. The facts do matter,
and ignoring the facts does not make them disappear.

> You're saying the same is logical because its true, which is question begging.

Wrong again, Ray. What I'm saying is that it's true, and it's logical.
Your attempts to cast it as illogical are based on your own ignorance
of logic, and your ignorance of language.

> I'm saying terms used to describe the evo cause-and-effect scheme contradict each other,

And I, and Roger, and several others have been pointing out, with actual
examples, that the "cause and effect" of evolution are both logical AND
true. There is no contradiction. There is only your word games.

> terms used to describe effects, and the epistemological restriction forbidding support of teleology.

"Terms used" are irrelevant to the facts, Ray. I can describe atomic
fusion as "a big purple cow" but that doesn't make it one. Your
attempts to describe evolution as "illogical" don't make it so either.


And for your claim that teleology is "forbidden", you ran away too
early before I addressed that later in this post.



DJT

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> skrev i melding

news:D72dnW5cldwzWV7M...@giganews.com...

> On 6/20/13 6:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:36:58 PM UTC-7, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 16, 5:41 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Jun 16, 1:05 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> Our Evolutionist conveys non-random to have a unique meaning (unplanned
>> and mindless).
>
>
> Ray, you are wrong again. I did not "convey" any such thing. "Non
> random" in this context means "biased toward a particular outcome".
> Planning, and possessing a mind are entirely irrelevant to this meaning of
> non random.
>
>

Ray is playing with loaded dice.

Rolf

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:

> > [...] Again, in response, I point
> > out that mindlessness producing order (= illogical); or mind producing
> > order (= logical).

> Again I point out that mindlessness producing order is something that
> happens. Reality, however illogical you consider it, is still real. So
> it does not matter whether or not evolution seems illogical to you; it
> happens regardless.

Mindlessness producing its antonym epitomizes unsound logic. Your only defense is that since the proposition is allegedly true it is therefore logical. This is question begging. The fact of unsound logic means the proposition is false, doesn't exist in the wild (except in the deluded minds of Darwinists).

And I'm still waiting for Roger to rescue the evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme from this position of unsound logic. All he's done is offer stipulated meanings for various words. He has not addressed the fact that terms have more than one valid meaning or understanding.

The **concepts** of random and non-random contradict; the **concepts** of non-random and mindless contradict; and the **concepts** of random and mindless contradict the **concepts** of organized complexity and order.

Epistemologically, the evo cause-and-effect scheme equates to an antonymic contradiction. The concept of non-random is teleological and contradicts other adjectives describing causation; and the total causation package (except non-random) contradicts terms accepted as describing effects (organized complexity and order).

And again, concepts or terms have more than one valid meaning. This defeats the argument that any particular definition extricates the scheme from contradiction and illogic.

Ray

[Burkhard]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 3:44:26 AM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> --random cause (mutation) + non-random cause (natural selection)
> produces organized complexity or ordered effects--
>
>
>
> In the above cause-and-effect scheme the final cause, or that which
> handles species lastly, is non-random. Thus non-random cause produces
> ordered effects (= logical).

Nothing "logical" about it - simply something that happens to b factually corrects

> But Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins have criticized the general
> notion of non-random (or any synonym) producing ordered effects as
> illogical.

Nobody has done that. Of course non-random causes can sometimes produce ordered effects. The general claim however that _only_ non-random causes produce ordered effects is not so much "illogical" as simply factually wrong

> The specific notion in mind would be guided or directed
> cause creating organized complexity or ordered effects (= logical).
>
> So we can say the general notion is indeed logical. This means the
> specific notion must also be logical. One cannot conclude against the
> latter since the same is a synonymous construction.

That makes no sense whatsoever, care to rephrase that in English?

> But the issue here is not teleological cause-and-effect schemes, but
> the logic of natural selection----or that which is portrayed as non-
> random. Yet evolutionary authorities routinely describe the selection
> process as mindless, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent (to name
> a few).
>
>
> The question then arises: How can the selection process be described
> as non-random yet mindless, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and
> remain logical?

By demonstrating that they can be (Within limits) predicted. Nothing more exotic is needed to call a process non-random. If I observe that there are two colour schemes present in a species, green and brown, and I also observe that due to changes in climate, green foliage becomes rare and brown earth more prevalent, then I can predict that the brown species will become less prone to be eaten by their common predators than the green one. A further prediction will then be that they become more common than the green ones.

Could be wrong, of course(falsifiability) but it is a reasonable and testable prediction that I can make. If on the other hand colour schemes had a random effect on being eaten, we would expect that statistically,there is no correlation between colour and life expectancy and that the relative distribution remains stable.

>
> I contend the concept of non-random contradicts the concepts of
> mindlessness, unguidedness, undirectedness, and unintelligence.

You content wrong. Intelligent actions can demonstrably have random results (very intelligent people in cryptography work very hard to create random numbers as this makes breaking codes harder)and unguided events (the way everybody but you understand the term) can be highly predictable - predicting where rain will cause flooding e.g.

> And I
> contend that the general description of natural selection as a non-
> random process is maintained so the evolutionary cause-and-effect
> scheme is seen as logical and not antonymic.

look up what "antonymic" means, no single scheme can ever be antonymic, for starters.

>
>
> Ray

[Burkhard]

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 6:59:53 PM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>
>
> > > [...] Again, in response, I point
>
> > > out that mindlessness producing order (= illogical); or mind producing
>
> > > order (= logical).
>
>
>
> > Again I point out that mindlessness producing order is something that
>
> > happens. Reality, however illogical you consider it, is still real. So
>
> > it does not matter whether or not evolution seems illogical to you; it
>
> > happens regardless.
>
>
>
> Mindlessness producing its antonym epitomizes unsound logic.

No it doesn't. There is no reason why things that are semantically antonyms should not be in a causal relation. Whether or not 2 terms are antonyms is merely a question of semantics. Whether two objects stand in a causal relation by contrast is a question not of word meaning (semantics) but facts.

If I love someone, my love for him can cause me to hate her enemies. Love and hate are as close to antonyms as you can get, yet here love causes hate

Inhaling air causes ultimately to exhale it again, again we have two antonyms in a causal relation.

> Your only defense is that since the proposition is allegedly true it is >therefore logical. This is question begging.

No, it is a valid logical proof. Since contradictory or illogical statements are not just false, but false in all models. Demonstrating that it is in fact true means that there is at least one model in which it is true, hence the claim it is illogical is falsified - a simple application of modus tollens, as basic a logical operation as you can get

> The fact of unsound logic means >the proposition is false, doesn't exist in >the wild (except in the deluded >minds of Darwinists).
>

Propositions never exist in the wild, what they describe however may be. This is always a question of fact, not of logic - indeed, the very condition "exists in the wild" is pretty close to the definition of "empirical fact", logic does not enter it

>
>
> And I'm still waiting for Roger to rescue the evolutionary cause-and-effect >scheme from this position of unsound logic. All he's done is offer stipulated >meanings for various words. He has not addressed the fact that terms have more >than one valid meaning or understanding.
>

Quite on the contrary, he has demonstrated that quite clearly, by showing that you use the word n one meaning, but then fallaciously draw conclusions form it that only apply to the other meaning. He did this particularly nicely with your mangled use of the word "logical"

>
>
> The **concepts** of random and non-random contradict;

Yup, that's how the "no"-prefix word in English

> the **concepts** of non-random and mindless contradict;

No, that is a factual claim by you, and it is either an empirical claim, and provably wrong (the rock that falls from a cliff will end up at a position we can predict, hence is not random) or a metaphysical claim about causality, that leads you to occasionalism, or pantheism, or panentheism. If the latter, no scientist cares, as all causal relations are affected, and the metaphysical interpretation is therefore neutral with regards to the content of scientific theories. The ToE is then just as valid as the theory of gravity, neither requires references to minds when writing down the actual theory both can easily be interpreted however as some metaphysical mind working out reality.

> and the **concepts** of random and mindless contradict the **concepts** of organized complexity and order.
>

As above. None of them contradict each other as a matter of semantics, whether they ever instantiate causal relations is an issue of fact, not logic

>
> Epistemologically, the evo cause-and-effect scheme equates to an antonymic >contradiction.

that sentence makes no sense, gramatically. Only pairs of words can be antonymic, only pairs of sentences can be contradictory, one single cause and effect scheme can therefore be neither

>The concept of non-random is teleological and contradicts other adjectives >describing causation; and the total causation package (except non-random) >contradicts terms accepted as describing effects (organized complexity and >order).
>

Say that again in English?

>
> And again, concepts or terms have more than one valid meaning. This defeats >the argument that any particular definition extricates the scheme from >contradiction and illogic.
>

Same for that piece of word salad


> Ray

[Rolf Aalberg]

I saw a nice example of a selective process in action on tv today:
A band of killer whales hunting seals. They got close enough to a seal
but when they discovered it was a crab-eater they left it alone for fear
of its strong teeth. They went away and found another of a less
dangerous kind.

Rolf

>> Ray
>
>

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>>> [...] Again, in response, I point
>>> out that mindlessness producing order (= illogical); or mind producing
>>> order (= logical).
>
>> Again I point out that mindlessness producing order is something that
>> happens. Reality, however illogical you consider it, is still real. So
>> it does not matter whether or not evolution seems illogical to you; it
>> happens regardless.
>
> Mindlessness producing its antonym epitomizes unsound logic.

Non random processes are not an antonym of "mindless", Ray. Why do you
assume they are?

Also, Ray, you don't know what is sound logic, so you can't possibly say
what is, or is not sound logic. You keep mistaking your own ignorance for

logic.



> Your only defense is that since the proposition is allegedly true it is
> therefore logical.

No, he also has the option to point out that it is quite logical for things
to happen that Ray may not expect. Ray's expectations do not equate to
logic.




> This is question begging.

No, begging the question would be claiming that God punishes people for
thinking for themselves, because God said he does. That is circular
reasoning, a form of begging the question. Saying that something that can
be seen happening must be true is not begging the question.

> The fact of unsound logic means the proposition is false, doesn't exist
in the wild (except in the deluded minds of Darwinists).

Your failure is that you haven't shown the logic is unsound, and that
evolution and natural selection have both been observed happening "in the
wild". You claim that it only happens "in the mind" is refuted by actual
observations.

>
> And I'm still waiting for Roger to rescue the evolutionary
> cause-and-effect scheme from this position of unsound logic.

There is no need to rescue what is not in danger. You have only asserted
that the logic is unsound. Whenever you are asked to show what is unsound
about it, you just fall back on more assertions. You mistakenly, and
dishonestly equivocate logic with your personal assumptions and hasty
intuitions. Whenever one shows you are wrong, you run away, and start the
cycle over again.

> All he's done is offer stipulated meanings for various words.

What he has done is to show you are equivocating words, and misusing
disparate meanings.

> He has not addressed the fact that terms have more than one valid meaning or understanding.

Actually, he has many times when he points out your equivocation. Words
often have more than one valid meaning, but mixing those meanings in
different contexts is dishonest and misleading. For example, the word
"raise" has more than one valid meaning. If you go to your boss, and ask
for a raise, you are asking for an increase in wages. If you ask an
elevator operator for a raise, you are asking to go to a higher floor.
If you ask your boss for a raise, and he picks you up , he is using the
term inappropriately. Likewise, if you use the word "random" in the
loose, colloquial meaning of "unplanned", when talking about decidedly non
random (statistically)natural selection, you are being dishonest.

.


>
> The **concepts** of random and non-random contradict; the **concepts** of
> non-random and mindless contradict;

No, they do not, unless you are using alternate, and inappropriate meanings
of those words. Mindless processes do not have to be statistically
random. They can, and do provide a non random bias to a fully random set
of events.

> and the **concepts** of random and mindless contradict the **concepts**
> of organized complexity and order.

Many people, including myself have pointed out you don't seem to grasp what
a concept really is, and as such, badly misuse the term. The above is a
good example. Random, as a concept, and mindless, as a concept may
intersect at places, but the words do not mean the same thing all the time.
Organized complexity really has no meaning, and you are using it as a
buzzword, instead of something more concrete. Both random events, and
mindless events can have complex, and organized outcomes. When a non
random process acts on a random set of events, organized and complex events
can, and do happen. No amount of childish stamping can stop this.

>
> Epistemologically, the evo cause-and-effect scheme equates to an antonymic contradiction.

You error is you can't admit that there is no contradiction, and that what
you call "antonyms" are not so in reality.

>The concept of non-random is teleological and contradicts other adjectives
> describing causation;

"Non random" has nothing to do with teleology, Ray. A thing does not
require a goal, or a plan to be non random. Whatever adjectives a person
might use are not a constraint on reality. Calling a moose small, orange,
or lopsided, does not affect what a moose really is.

> and the total causation package (except non-random) contradicts terms
> accepted as describing effects (organized complexity and order).

You still don't get that your assumptions are not what actually exists in
nature. Organized and complex things occur out of unplanned, and random
processes fairly often. Saying the dont exist is just being silly.

>
> And again, concepts or terms have more than one valid meaning.

Yes, but trying to mix those meanings out of their proper contexts is
dishonest.

> This defeats the argument that any particular definition extricates the
> scheme from contradiction and illogic.

Not that anyone ever made such an argument in the first place..... What
defeats your claim is that you are using terms where and when they don't
apply.


DJT