Greatsilverwyrm

That's how it was for me as well. Happy coincidence.

Read the rest of the article.

Well, if you'll be so kind as to elaborate I'll be glad to voice my opinion. As far as I've seen, everything that "seems" random is not random at all - atomic radioactive decay was the previous example given. http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=612 Yet the question still arises that, if atomic radioactive decay is truly random, why is it linear and predictable outside of a single molecule? The link I posted has nothing to do with radioactive decay. Also, what? I'm not a quantum physicist but are you saying because we can run statistical analyses on the decay of certain atoms and determine a window for when that particle might decay it means that it's not random? Because that's fallacious.

Well, if you'll be so kind as to elaborate I'll be glad to voice my opinion. As far as I've seen, everything that "seems" random is not random at all - atomic radioactive decay was the previous example given. http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=612 That's the best overview description I could find of Bell's expiriment.

Y_Guy, what is your feeling on the claim that certain subatomic processes are completely random? Edit: and by "claim" I mean "widely-accepted fact".

Yes, that seems to be fairly reasonable. What I don't accept was that this was necessarily completely unguided. What evidence is there, in your mind, that it was guided? Is it simply that you can't accept it? An argument from incredulity doesn't fly.

Those aren't really quite ad hominem, they just aren't really very good arguments. I don't feel like going back through however many pages, so I'll ask a question of you: Do you accept that the biological diversity we see today is a result of gradual change in organisms over billions of years, and that most organisms have a common ancestor?

Oi! I take exception to that.

Anyone remember when cape dyes came out, and there was constantly a line to talk to the NPC?

HERP DERP. The Big Bang has not been observed, clearly, since it happened 13-odd billion years ago. But we can plainly see the evidence of it.

I don't think I ever did any, did I? I couldn't find any on a cursory search, at least...

Here you go, also circa 2003. This was also in your folder, I'm not sure I remember why. Edit: Why the [bleep] does it say a "wyrm sig production"? I seem to remember you forced me to put that there?

Howso? Say I grant you that the existence of our universe and the life in it boils down to random chance. What does that gain you?

This whole question of "randomness" is just a pointless semantics debate. Y_Guy. Do you believe in a creative force of some sort? Why? What evidence do you have to support that idea?

Let me point out that when you said: I laughed at you. And I absolutely disagree with you on that point, and it would take someone without a clue as to what a mutation is, or how it works in evolution, to say it. I'm calling you out on your ignorance. Anyhow, it seems you've wised up to the fact that mutation is very pertinent to evolution and genetic variation, and that evolution at its very core is a mutation of species - changes in their DNA - and that mutations are purely random. I don't feel like discussing this anymore, I've got too much to do. You all take care now. It's true that mutations are random. What does that gain you? Advantageous mutations mean that individual is more likely to reproduce and pass that mutation onto it's offspring. This is the heart of evolution.