I know, but circling back to the cause of all this.. you said we see nonliving things assemble without randomness. Assembling would be forming, and the formation of said pattern is random.. not the pattern itself. So to say that something nonliving can form a non random pattern non randomly implies that there is a non random force behind the formation. You might not intentionally imply that, but that's what it implies. Even when there is a force behind it, such as man creating the bismuth crystal you pictured, there is randomness to it.. that's why the crystal is all over the place.
All forces are nonrandom. No my point was that i dont get why evolution was ever considered random. As the snowflake forms it doesnt know what the final shape will be, but it still evolves with pattern. Why do we assume life evolves without randomly pattern? Sure chance mutations throw a defect in here or there, but it cannot be reduced purely chance mutations.
No but to evolve from ape-like creature to human via chance mutations does seem absurd. Cant blame anyone for calling bullshit on that idea.
To evolve from ape to man is not absurd... Our brains are similar even to modern apes, so is our physical structure and some of our innate body language is the same as well, the family structure is also eerily similar to modern apes, mating habits again pretty much parallels modern apes, tool use is also shared among most of the Great Apes (including humans) Alls we are is a hyper intelligent ape The idea of single cell > Homo Sapiens sounds absurd, however is totally verifiable...
Science never makes such claims, however it has come to a solid conclusion that evolution is fact... Just as gravity Remember Gravity is still "just a theory"
Random mutations aren't the only mechanism in play when it comes to evolution.. if you try to look at evolution like it is caused by random mutation only, you'll never get it. But.. you said all forces are non random. Seeing as there is a force behind everything, you're implying that nothing is random. That's a very convenient way to backpedal out of being wrong.. just say everything is non random. Which raises my next question.. do you see consciousness as a product of the brain or do you believe there is consciousness in everything?
Most of what we do is habit, only a small part of our brain is actually (conscious) Consciousness is a constant stream of sensory input being sifted through by our brains the rest is all automated such as memory placement\\retrieval, breathing, heartbeat, temp control, nutrient distribution IMO we are Apes with big brains @ICGreen I'm the OP round these parts boy! Lol but yeah I do wish people would stay on topic :'(
Idk, its a stoner forum for *ucksake what do people expect? Lectures on Quantum Theory and practical applications of the Alcubierre Warp Drive Theory I'd love for it to stay on topic, but I'm working with fellow stoners... Can't expect an uber attention span
It detracts from the threads topic, sidelines the conversations and builds post count with what is considered of no value. See the thread below. http://forum.grasscity.com/apprentice-tokers/893346-attn-regarding-pointless-posts-what-we-expect-forum.html
every time I ever go to a stoner forum I end up getting in trouble and getting contact deleted or getting banned for being irrelevant or silly it actually makes me really sad It's my birthday today honest to God
I am with ya on that one.. but there are people out there who believe everything (even non living) has consciousness to it, and that it is one of the driving forces behind everything.. including abiogenesis and evolution (including evolution of life without a brain).
I see your confusion and possible stumbling block. A lot of people, especially on the religious side do not know nor understand the difference between the word theory and the entire package of a scientific theory.
I realize people don't understand the difference, it just baffles me that they refuse to accept cold hard facts... Nothing science does disproves Yahweh in any manner, there is simply no evidence for (a) God(s)
Its not a straw man if it's verifiable... If anything youre the one throwing out straw man arguments I hate repeating myself