Evolution by Definition

I don't mean apparently random, I mean absolutely random. Random is random, especially in mutations. If you knew how mutations come about, you'd realize what a fool you're being.

if you are saying absolutely that you understand DNA, and that identical strands of DNA will behave differently to introductions of the exact same amount(in identical conditions):then DNA has a mind of its own to make decisions just because it "wants" to.if you are telling me everything that CAN be known about DNA IS known, then why is there any research at all left in DNA?i cannot accept that mutations are random. its illogical. introductions can be random. mutation is definite by coding and base construct.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Let me spell it out for you. DNA does not have a mind of its own. DNA IS NOT SENTIENT. It can, however, act differently in different situations. There are other variables in play besides simply the nature of the DNA strand. Just because two identical strands of DNA act differently in the same situation, it does not mean that they are sentient. Every single DNA strand in your body is identical to each of its counterparts, not counting its compliment strand. However, not each strand behaves in the exact same way when placed into a cell. Not even in the same cell do identical strands of DNA behave in the exact same way. Seriously, stop making half-assed philosophical arguments that you think refute the basis of the science. Understand what you're talking about before you talk about it. Believe me, it's better that way for everyone. How is the randomness of mutations illogical? Mutations, by definition, are random.

if its not sentient, its not random. its like wood. it will burn, or will not burn, based on the conditions.the randomness is only apparent. either a: the strands are NOT identical, or b: the conditions are not identical.variables are being overlooked. and probably the greatest is the base compositions of its environment.for instance, what is the DNA composed of? (what kind of atom) what atoms are present in the body the DNA is housed? how does the separate DNA in mitochondria, act to mutations in the cell it houses? what was the reaction on atomic levels in the cell and mitochondria? what is the evolution over time of these base atoms for its condition? how does that affect mutation? what mutations are possible by electric fields being present? at what levels? what about gravitational forces? at what levels? what about outside pressure? at what levels? what about other waves? microwaves, sound, low sound waves, high sound waves? at what levels? whats the reaction to heat of the base elements within DNA? at what levels?i could continue but the questions would never stop.that is why it is illogical to me. these questions have not been answered.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So, by your logic, either a game of dice is non-random, or dice are sentient. Right?

You are not forgetting what/how Pascal thought about dice are you?

If you're making reference to Pascal's Wager, it better be a joke.

if you took into account all variables of the dice being thrown, the throwing equations, gravity, rebound etc positioning initially etc. and ALL variables relative to the dice, the dice outcome could not be concealed.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Indeed. But the question remains, will one ever be able to take into account ALL the factors? If not, which is probably the truth, then the outcome of a dice roll is, for all intensive purposes, random, as are mutations, which would have an infinite number of variables, by your argument.

now is where my work on this topic stops, and yours begins. because you realize this truth. and have now asked the proper question.God be with you always,-Tim Brown

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

His correspondence with Fermat and writing on the Arithmetic Triangle?

You have only said what we have all known to be true. Yet you have gone about it in such a roundabout way that it has been impossible to truly figure out what you wanted to say. Yet the fact remains, what you have said, and what I have said has not changed anything. Mutations are still random in their appearance and effect, and evolution will continue. Your work will never be over. It is your burden to provide your evidence, which you have failed to do countless times.

Ah yes. Pascal's triangle. I'm familiar with that one. But what does it have to do with this?

but the need for clearer definitions of what is considered biological evolution should now be clear.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

What? Because there are an actual infinite number of variables we haven't addressed yet, we must redefine evolution? Perhaps that's why it's called the theory of evolution, and perhaps that's why science is open to revising it, provided of course, that evidence against its tenets is uncovered.Uncover some actual evidence, not some philosophy. The current definition and science of evolution is perfectly suited for our understanding today. Simply because science cannot physically take account of every variable, it doesn't mean that science must redefine its boundaries.