Quote from: twthmoses on August 23, 2018, 11:25:17 AM

Quote from: BADecker on August 22, 2018, 02:44:14 PM

Why would you think that I think C&E eliminates randomness? We have billions or trillions of examples of C&E, but none whatsoever of pure random. They don't necessarily eliminate each other. It all revolves around what exists. How can you eliminate something that you can't find, i.e., random? It isn't there to eliminate?

If "you have to have the exact same causes, under the exact same circumstances," all you have is the exact same physics working with the exact same C&E. Nothing goes on in evolution, because evolution only exists in the minds of people who think it exists. We have no example of evolution in nature. All examples of evolution in nature are examples of adaptation or like-begets-like. How do we know? Because adaptation or like-begets-like fits the examples better than the evolution fiction. How do we know this? Because evolution says "randomness" in part, but C&E in as many things that we understand C&E in, without finding even one proven instance of pure random, shows that random doesn't exist probability-wise.

No random means no evolution, because evolution theory says that there have to be random mutations. All mutations are C&E actions.

What this all means is that C&E continues to work with physics laws to make large of varieties of "things" by the programming that C&E is. Or can you show us one proof of something that came about by random without being the effect of one or more causes?

Further, all the scientists know that C&E works in everything. How do we know that they know this? Because that's all they do in their observation or experimentation. Even a scientist who looks for pure random does it by using all kinds of C&E to find it. In fact, the scientist, himself/herself, is totally made of C&E.

Cool

The question whether what we call random, is truly random, is a philosophical question. My guess is as good as yours. It does not really matter, because you dont need true random in Evolution. There are a billion factors on the line, just passing two DNA strings on to the next generation. Multiply that by billion years and a billion species, reproducing a trillion times each. You got all the randomness you will ever need. Not even all the computer power in the world could produce this level of randomness.

True randomness is by no means a requirement for evolution; you just need mixing under different circumstances, and there you got all the randomness you will need. And as said before Evolution is observable on the daily basic, in all species. Examples of evolution, you are constant looking for, are so plentiful in nature, you could not even count them. Certainly two parents having two different children is not adaptation? like-begets-like, Ill give you that, exists very much. I got another word for that, Evolution!

Actually, even though the question of random may be philosophical to some people, it is also a reality question that falls into the realm of scientific non-philosophical investigation.

When evolution theory talks about random, it is not talking about fake or false random.

The billion factors are a billion examples of cause and effect action, not of random. Multiply that by a billion years and billions of species and you have just proven no evolution. How? Not one example of non-C&E action has ever been found, factually. All actions that are not known to be C&E factually, are expected to be C&E, simply because of the trillions of C&E actions that have been found, without even one pure random action ever having been found.

Our computers are extremely limited when compared with the computer-like action performed in all life in nature. Computer action or lack thereof, has nothing to do with random. It has everything to do with C&E... since all computers act through C&E, while random in computer action is only artificial random simply because complex C&E looks like random to people. Why? Because of the inherent weakness of people to observe such complexity clearly.

When evolution theory evolution says "random," where does it ever say "artificial random?" Since the question of what ETE means by "random" seems to be appearing now, evolution is truly not known to exist. Why? Because if true random is not what evolution is talking about, then ETE is talking about artificial random, which is C&E operated. C&E acts perfectly, according to the laws of physics. This means that evolution is essentially programmed if it exists. But ETE doesn't talk along the lines of programming at all! So, evolution doesn't exist, even if pure random exists.

In Japan there have been simple robots built that can reproduce themselves if given the right parts for reproduction. It's all C&E done. Nature that has no true or pure random, is C&E programmed to reproduce way beyond current understanding. So-called examples of evolution are simply examples of super-complex programming on a scale unimaginable.

Cool