But all the evidence points at simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like way better than it points at evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
Evolution is a hoax.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simple change, adaptation and like-begets-like IS evolution. That's literally what evolution is. If you believe in those things, then you believe in the fact of evolution.
Come on, we've been over this!
The fact of evolution. I'd say theory, but there's more evidence for evolution than there is for anything else. This is stone cold fact.
Evolution Theory Evolution (ETE) is not simple change, adaptation, or like-begets-like. The two basic areas where these things differ are in the understanding of random, and in cause and effect (C&E).
C&E, which exists all over the place, and throughout everything that we understand, suggests design rather than some form of pure random. ETE tricks people into thinking that random and pure random are the same. But they aren't. Pure random has to do with complete spontaneity. Simple random has to do with our ignorance and inability to track detailed C&E.
ETE is full of simple random. But that we know, there isn't any pure random anywhere. This means that ETE is full of our ignorance and inability to track detailed C&E. So, if we can't track it, how do we even know that it exists? Saying that ETE IS simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like is just a guess.
Simple random - not knowing - has to do with simple change, adaptation, or like-begets-like, because these things all operate through C&E with no proof for ETE. Pure random doesn't exist at all that we have proven. Even computers that operate on what is called pure random, still have causes for their random effects. ETE has no proof.
Evolution is a hoax.
Sorry for the huge quote, but this is an important point of contention in this thread, and we still haven't got to the bottom of it.
BADecker - you accept simple change, adaptation and like-begets-like, yes? Your point is that 'random' mutations aren't really random because they have cause and effect, which you trhink suggests design. Is this right?
It's not just a mutation from 'A'->'B', though. 'A' mutates into 'C' through 'Z' as well. It's not that the mutation 'B' has been designed to succeed, it's that vast numbers of different mutations occur, the overwhelming are not beneficial and are (naturally) selected out of the gene pool. It's not that 'B' survives as a positive mutation because it has been designed that way, it's that of the 25 'B' through 'Z' variations, only one of them was beneficial to the animal's chances of survival. The 24 animals with the harmful 'C' through 'Z' mutations didn't reach adulthood to reproduce.