Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Mathematician's View of Evolution
The Mathematical Intelligencer ^ | Granville Sewell

Posted on 09/20/2006 9:51:34 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

A Mathematician's View of Evolution

Granville Sewell

Mathematics Dept.

University of Texas El Paso

The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, no. 4 (2000), pp5-7

Copyright held by Springer Verlag, NY, LLC

In 1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe published a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box" [Free Press], whose central theme is that every living cell is loaded with features and biochemical processes which are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they require the existence of numerous complex components, each essential for function. Thus, these features and processes cannot be explained by gradual Darwinian improvements, because until all the components are in place, these assemblages are completely useless, and thus provide no selective advantage. Behe spends over 100 pages describing some of these irreducibly complex biochemical systems in detail, then summarizes the results of an exhaustive search of the biochemical literature for Darwinian explanations. He concludes that while biochemistry texts often pay lip-service to the idea that natural selection of random mutations can explain everything in the cell, such claims are pure "bluster", because "there is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred."

When Dr. Behe was at the University of Texas El Paso in May of 1997 to give an invited talk, I told him that I thought he would find more support for his ideas in mathematics, physics and computer science departments than in his own field. I know a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who, like me, are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences. Few of them ever speak out or write on this issue, however--perhaps because they feel the question is simply out of their domain. However, I believe there are two central arguments against Darwinism, and both seem to be most readily appreciated by those in the more mathematical sciences.

1. The cornerstone of Darwinism is the idea that major (complex) improvements can be built up through many minor improvements; that the new organs and new systems of organs which gave rise to new orders, classes and phyla developed gradually, through many very minor improvements. We should first note that the fossil record does not support this idea, for example, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson ["The History of Life," in Volume I of "Evolution after Darwin," University of Chicago Press, 1960] writes:

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution...This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large. These peculiarities of the record pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life: Is the sudden appearance of higher categories a phenomenon of evolution or of the record only, due to sampling bias and other inadequacies?"

An April, 1982, Life Magazine article (excerpted from Francis Hitching's book, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong") contains the following report:

"When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there...'Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life', writes David M. Raup, a curator of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, 'what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the fossil sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence, then abruptly disappear.' These are not negligible gaps. They are periods, in all the major evolutionary transitions, when immense physiological changes had to take place."

Even among biologists, the idea that new organs, and thus higher categories, could develop gradually through tiny improvements has often been challenged. How could the "survival of the fittest" guide the development of new organs through their initial useless stages, during which they obviously present no selective advantage? (This is often referred to as the "problem of novelties".) Or guide the development of entire new systems, such as nervous, circulatory, digestive, respiratory and reproductive systems, which would require the simultaneous development of several new interdependent organs, none of which is useful, or provides any selective advantage, by itself? French biologist Jean Rostand, for example, wrote ["A Biologist's View," Wm. Heinemann Ltd. 1956]:

"It does not seem strictly impossible that mutations should have introduced into the animal kingdom the differences which exist between one species and the next...hence it is very tempting to lay also at their door the differences between classes, families and orders, and, in short, the whole of evolution. But it is obvious that such an extrapolation involves the gratuitous attribution to the mutations of the past of a magnitude and power of innovation much greater than is shown by those of today."

Behe's book is primarily a challenge to this cornerstone of Darwinism at the microscopic level. Although we may not be familiar with the complex biochemical systems discussed in this book, I believe mathematicians are well qualified to appreciate the general ideas involved. And although an analogy is only an analogy, perhaps the best way to understand Behe's argument is by comparing the development of the genetic code of life with the development of a computer program. Suppose an engineer attempts to design a structural analysis computer program, writing it in a machine language that is totally unknown to him. He simply types out random characters at his keyboard, and periodically runs tests on the program to recognize and select out chance improvements when they occur. The improvements are permanently incorporated into the program while the other changes are discarded. If our engineer continues this process of random changes and testing for a long enough time, could he eventually develop a sophisticated structural analysis program? (Of course, when intelligent humans decide what constitutes an "improvement", this is really artificial selection, so the analogy is far too generous.)

If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible.

Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan.

If archeologists of some future society were to unearth the many versions of my PDE solver, PDE2D , which I have produced over the last 20 years, they would certainly note a steady increase in complexity over time, and they would see many obvious similarities between each new version and the previous one. In the beginning it was only able to solve a single linear, steady-state, 2D equation in a polygonal region. Since then, PDE2D has developed many new abilities: it now solves nonlinear problems, time-dependent and eigenvalue problems, systems of simultaneous equations, and it now handles general curved 2D regions.

Over the years, many new types of graphical output capabilities have evolved, and in 1991 it developed an interactive preprocessor, and more recently PDE2D has adapted to 3D and 1D problems. An archeologist attempting to explain the evolution of this computer program in terms of many tiny improvements might be puzzled to find that each of these major advances (new classes or phyla??) appeared suddenly in new versions; for example, the ability to solve 3D problems first appeared in version 4.0. Less major improvements (new families or orders??) appeared suddenly in new subversions, for example, the ability to solve 3D problems with periodic boundary conditions first appeared in version 5.6. In fact, the record of PDE2D's development would be similar to the fossil record, with large gaps where major new features appeared, and smaller gaps where minor ones appeared. That is because the multitude of intermediate programs between versions or subversions which the archeologist might expect to find never existed, because-- for example--none of the changes I made for edition 4.0 made any sense, or provided PDE2D any advantage whatever in solving 3D problems (or anything else) until hundreds of lines had been added.

Whether at the microscopic or macroscopic level, major, complex, evolutionary advances, involving new features (as opposed to minor, quantitative changes such as an increase in the length of the giraffe's neck*, or the darkening of the wings of a moth, which clearly could occur gradually) also involve the addition of many interrelated and interdependent pieces. These complex advances, like those made to computer programs, are not always "irreducibly complex"--sometimes there are intermediate useful stages. But just as major improvements to a computer program cannot be made 5 or 6 characters at a time, certainly no major evolutionary advance is reducible to a chain of tiny improvements, each small enough to be bridged by a single random mutation.

2. The other point is very simple, but also seems to be appreciated only by more mathematically-oriented people. It is that to attribute the development of life on Earth to natural selection is to assign to it--and to it alone, of all known natural "forces"--the ability to violate the second law of thermodynamics and to cause order to arise from disorder. It is often argued that since the Earth is not a closed system--it receives energy from the Sun, for example-- the second law is not applicable in this case. It is true that order can increase locally, if the local increase is compensated by a decrease elsewhere, ie, an open system can be taken to a less probable state by importing order from outside. For example, we could transport a truckload of encyclopedias and computers to the moon, thereby increasing the order on the moon, without violating the second law. But the second law of thermodynamics--at least the underlying principle behind this law--simply says that natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen**, and it is absurd to argue that because the Earth receives energy from the Sun, this principle was not violated here when the original rearrangement of atoms into encyclopedias and computers occurred.

The biologist studies the details of natural history, and when he looks at the similarities between two species of butterflies, he is understandably reluctant to attribute the small differences to the supernatural. But the mathematician or physicist is likely to take the broader view. I imagine visiting the Earth when it was young and returning now to find highways with automobiles on them, airports with jet airplanes, and tall buildings full of complicated equipment, such as televisions, telephones and computers. Then I imagine the construction of a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet (perhaps using random number generators to model quantum uncertainties!). If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards? If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen? Certainly we would not, and I do not believe that adding sunlight to the model would help much. Clearly something extremely improbable has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

footnotes

*Ironically, W.E.Loennig's article "The Evolution of the Long-necked Giraffe," has since convinced me that even this feature could not, and did not, arise gradually.

**An unfortunate choice of words, for which I was severely chastised. I should have said, the underlying principle behind the second law is that natural forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view. See "A Second Look at the Second Law," for a more thorough treatment of this point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granville Sewell completed his PhD at Purdue University. He has subsequently been employed by (in chronological order) Universidad Simon Bolivar (Caracas), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Purdue University, IMSL (Houston), The University of Texas Center for High Performance Computing (Austin), and the University of Texas El Paso; he spent Fall 1999 at Universidad Nacional de Tucuman in Argentina on a Fulbright grant. He has written three books on numerical analysis.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; darwinsblackbox; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; granvillesewell; id; idjunkscience; idscam; intelligentdesign; irreduciblycomplex; mathematician; michaelbehe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 651-696 next last
To: Last Visible Dog

Ah....and I posted my correction without reading your next post.....a lesson for us all!


151 posted on 09/20/2006 6:23:58 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
Our running ability is useful for running things down, not for getting away from things.

Then the numbers are even worse - the overwhelming sprint speed advantage of four legged mammals would mean man is not going to run down much.

152 posted on 09/20/2006 6:29:37 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
After reading that post I am really confused what yours could be!

?

You don't make much sense

153 posted on 09/20/2006 6:31:10 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
"$1,000,000 reward to the first evolutionist to get life to evolve from any sort of primordial soup in a reproducible fashion."


This is actually real.....Evolutionists have a $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can explain spontaneous generation by chance and natural processes...The Orgin-of-Life prize. Spontaneous generation is monumental problem for the evolutionist. The evolutionist has to accept it by faith, despite its incredibly low probability.


http://www.us.net/life/index.htm

The website is actually fairly interesting, and provides an interesting list of issues references, judges, etc...

One part that is particularly funny....

"Other than announcements in scientific journals, The Prize will not be publicly advertised in lay media. The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. wishes to keep the project as quiet as possible within the scientific community. No media interviews will be granted until after the Prize is won."
154 posted on 09/20/2006 7:14:56 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
This may seem like a pedant debate

I suppose if repeating arguments I've already conceded or excluded could be called pedantry. Among other things, I started by conceding that many animals could outsprint a human.

No would you like to consider the situation where the human is chasing the prey, and the prey is not a carnivore, or not chasing the human?

155 posted on 09/20/2006 7:22:26 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
They sprint and widen the range rapidly, we just keep jogging after them. We can keep up a moderate pace for longer than they can continue running away. One day of work yields thousands of calories--pretty good payback for the outlay. Perhaps this will help to clarify things.

Our ability to cover a lot of ground at a steady pace is also useful for foraging as well as for hunting.

156 posted on 09/20/2006 7:25:13 PM PDT by ahayes (My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

That's what I think about you. Glad we are of one mind.


157 posted on 09/20/2006 7:26:30 PM PDT by ahayes (My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Then the numbers are even worse - the overwhelming sprint speed advantage of four legged mammals would mean man is not going to run down much.

You are assuming a prey animal can keep up a sprint speed over a long distance in the summer heat. They can't. A typical human jogger can kill his pet dog by overheating it.

158 posted on 09/20/2006 7:33:47 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
"'As far as you know, is there a compelling mathematical argument in support of macro-evolution?'

Yes. (1 + µ)n ~ 1 only if µ=0 (micorevolution does not exist) and/or n is small (young Earth). If you accept microevolution and an old Earth, macroevolution is inescapable."


Random formation of even a single protein is mathematically highly improbable even if n is ridiculously large (one billion years). Spontaneous generation is much, much less probable. Faith in the highly improbable is inescapable for those with the presupposition of "matter is all there is".


c) Calculations of Bradley and Thaxton for random production of a single protein.

Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton calculated the probability of a random formation of amino acids into a protein to be 4.9 x 10-191. They began with the assumption that the probability of starting with an L-amino acid was .5, and the probability of starting with an L-amino acid was .5, and the probability of two L-amino acids joining with a peptide bond was also .5. They assumed that the twenty necessary amino acids existed in equal concentration in the prebiotic soup so that the probability of the right amino acid in the required position was .05.
Bradley and Thaxton were also generous towards the proponents of random processes when they also assumed that all of the chemical reactions would be with amino acids, ignoring the high probability of reactions with non-amino acid chemicals. They calculated the probability of the necessary placement of one amino acid to be .5 x .5 x .05 or .125. This, of coarse, meant that the probability of assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 x .0125 for N terms. Assuming a protein with 100 amino acids (.0125 x .0125 for 100 terms ), the mathematically impossible probability would be 4.9 x 10-191.
Bradley and Thaxton noted their agreement with Hubert P. Yockey and concluded that even assuming that all the carbon on earth existed in the form of amino acids and reacted at the greatest possible rate of 1012/s for one billion years (when actually only 130 million years were available), the mathematically impossible probability for the formation of one functional protein would be 10^-65.

other probability models posted here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689062/posts?page=185#185

a) Calculations of Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe for random generation of a simple enzyme and calculations for a single celled bacterium
b) Calculations of Hubert Yockey for random generation of a single molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c protein.
c) Calculations of Bradley and Thaxton for random production of a single protein.
d) Calculations of Harold Morowitz for single celled bacterium developing from accidental or chance processes.
e) Calculations of Bernd-Olaf Kuppers for the random generation of the sequence of a bacterium.
159 posted on 09/20/2006 7:50:30 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Now if you can get the Sun to shine on the fieldstone pile in my backyard and assemble it into that wall I've been meaning to build, you will have thoroughly destroyed Sewell's hypothesis."

..gotta add the random changes and evalution via a stochastic fitness algorithm to this....: )

...that will save me so much work and sore muscles.... I will go and build a fire in my backyard tonight. I have a pile of concrete blocks that I have been meaning to assemble into a wall for some time. The light and heat from the fire will surely assemble the blocks into a wall given enough time. Oh wait..if I get some dynamite and make a big bang in my backyard it will assemble the wall even faster......To wall to build even faster I will iteratively make random changes via a sledge hammer to the blocks and evaluate the blocks based on fitness via a (designed) stochastic algorithm. I will reproduce the blocks most fit for building a wall via (designed) molds, then apply energy via fire, sunlight, and dynamite so the blocks will assemble themselves into a wall. Given enough time, enough fire, and enough random changes via dynamite and sledge hammers, I will have assembled the wall....you saved me so much work I thought that I was going to have to actually design the wall by stacking the blocks in order....
160 posted on 09/20/2006 8:16:18 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector

But there is no point in figuring out the odds of a protein jumping into existence in one swoop. The question is what kind of algorithm would generate a protein.

Pi can be expressed in an infinite series of digits, or by any of several rather short algorithms.


161 posted on 09/20/2006 8:27:04 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
You offered: "Spontaneous generation is monumental problem for the evolutionist. The evolutionist has to accept it by faith, despite its incredibly low probability."

Not even remotely proper to assert ... the evolutionists need not accept or reject that which is not actually relevent to the processes they study. Abiogenesis is not the foundation upon which the processes of evolution rest. It would be just as senseless to assert that IDers must accept that at every change in life porocesses over the past 3.75 billion years, the designer poked His finger into the genome and cause the random changes thus no random changes occurred.

162 posted on 09/20/2006 8:44:57 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
That argument would be decisive against evolution, if evolution worked that way at all. Proteins don't "just fall together"; evolution doesn't require them to "fall together"; evolution would in fact be effectively falsified if ever they did.

All you're doing is tearing down an irrelevant strawman. Dismissed.

163 posted on 09/20/2006 9:21:20 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Funny thing is the life sciences seem not to recognize formal and final causes, evidently believing instead that material and efficient causes explain everything you need to know.

So very true. The picture will remain incomplete until all four causes are considered.

Thank you so much for your outstanding essay-posts!

164 posted on 09/20/2006 9:45:08 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
"In that afterlife, is there reward and punishment for what sort of life one has led prior to arriving in that afterlife?"

Why is punishment necessarily meted out in an afterlife? What if punishment were to be inflicted more directly and more immediately? By that I mean, barring accident or illness, one lives the usual three score and ten, or even four score, and then passes on, but why to an afterlife? If one believes, as a matter of positive evidence and knowledge, that life is but a brief interval here on earth, followed by eternal and utter oblivion, then why should that not be his fate? What could be more merciful and just? The one, who believes that life is finite and is followed by eternal oblivion, receives exactly what he expected; no more, no less. His free will is not even violated.

165 posted on 09/20/2006 9:58:06 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
A deer of comparable mental ability could do so as well.

The problem is deer wouldn't go from dumb as rocks to human intelligence in one generation. One particular deer would be a little smarter and a little slower, and he'd be the first in the belly of a wolf. Even if he weren't slower, he wouldn't have any particular advantage over other deer, since his daily routine would still be eat food, avoid wolves, and sleep.

As little as 50k years ago, a mere eyeblink of geologic time, there were giant deer, sloths, sabertoothed this and that, even sabertoothed kangaroos, but they are all gone. Did their niches change? Or did man upset the evolutionary processes by his mere existence?

Most likely man caused natural selection to speed up a bit by eating every single creature you mentioned. Whether or not that is "upset" is up to your interpretation.

166 posted on 09/20/2006 11:05:47 PM PDT by Thalos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The first idea one must accept if one presupposes that "matter is all there is" is that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter by natural random process. Either the first life came from non-life or it came from something outside of nature. Spontaneous generation is thus essential for the evolutionist. Evolution is was 'that links inorganic nature to life'.

"from the inorganic spontaneously, that is, without supernatural intervention and by the operation of material process, themselves of unknown origin, sometime during the first billion years or so of the earth's existence"

--George Gaylord Simpson

Without this concept, one will have to posulate a force outside the material world to explain the existence of the first life on earth. Any supernatural force would be in direct contradiction with the the presupposed atheistic theology and naturalistic philosophy. Therefore the evolutionist is left with the pre-scientific theory of spontaneous generation so fraught with difficulties that few scientists consider it science at all.

"Here we are, evolved though unaccounted ages from the inter-reaction of chemical and energies. Is this not the most awe-inspiring downright spine-tingling drama that can be conceived"

--Lloyd and Mary Morian


"The first living things were not anything so complex as a one celled organism, already a highly sophisticated form of life. The first stirrings wer much more humble. In early days, lightning and ultraviolet light from the Sun were breaking apart the simple hydrogen-rich molecules of the primitive atmosphere, the fragments spontaneously recombining into more and more complex molecules. The products of this early chemistry were dissolved in the oceans, forming a kind of organic soup of gradually increasing complexity, until one day, quite by accident, a molecule arose that the was able to make crude copies of itself, using building blocks other molecules in the soup."

--Carl Sagan


"Once upon a time, very long ago, perhaps two and half billion years ago, under a deadly sun, in an ammoniniated ocean topped by a poisonous atmopshere, in the midst of a soup of organic molecules, a nucleic acid molecule came accidentally into being that could somehow bring about the existence of another like itself--And from that all else would follow"

--Issac Asimov


'science' to many people has become synonymous with trying to explain the existence of the world with out God.


"It has become an accepted doctrine that life never arise except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since the conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance."

--J.W.N Sullivan


"It is essential for evolution to become the central core of any educational system, because it is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature to life, and the stars with with earth, and matter and mind, and animals to man."

--Julian Huxley.


Any idea of a force outside of nature, i.e. God or supernatural does not fit into the worldview of one who presupposes that 'matter is all there is'. For this reason evolutionists start with the presupposition that evolution is a fact, and then make up atheistic fairy tales about the origin of life, and make a vain attempt to regulate the supernatural, i.e. God to the world of mythology. Either one believes in the mythology of spontaneous generation, or one believes that the first life was designed by an intelligent designer outside of nature...God.
167 posted on 09/21/2006 5:37:21 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
I didn't read the intense article...preferring to use my own mind.

The idea that living things wouldn't contain "parts" of other living objects is an absurdity in my mind. But it doesn't follow that they are intimately connected.

ALL living things have to be connected because they are dependent. Darwin falls far short of that.

That's my blah, blah, blah for the day!! No flaming.

168 posted on 09/21/2006 5:44:21 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
I cannot believe that you think that botanical definitions are the only way to define things.

They're not. But from an evolutionary standpoint they are. You look at similar structures in similar plants, and peanuts are very clearly legumes. I don't care about what they do in your stomach, I care what they do for the plant.

Taxonomy and other classifications are artificial constructs, made by man to help order things.

To a certain extent yes, they're artificial in that they're made up. But that doesn't mean they aren't real or meaningful.

Not the last word, but wikipedia ("evolution of horses entry") disagrees with you.

Can you read? The article you cite indicates that Equus stenonis was the first "'true' horse" in the sense that it was the first member of the genus Equus. However there have been several distinct species between Equus stenonis and Equus caballus. Your own, not-very-comprehensive article explains this, listing Equus ferus as an intermediary. In fact, Equus stenonis is likely the ancestor of all extant horse, zebra and donkey species. Since few of them can cross-reproduce succesfully or easily (newsflash: Mules aren't fertile) it seems likely that modern horses and Equus stenonis would have been reproductively isolated had they been alive at the same time. Modern horses -- Equus caballus -- only came into existence within the last 3000 years.

169 posted on 09/21/2006 5:54:28 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Huh? Who said anything about creating an amoral society?

I think you're projecting. I like the fact that you concede that you lack the ability, intelligence or education to articulate or defend your own position (asking a highly trained newspaper columnist to do so instead), but not the ability to insult those with whom you disagree.

170 posted on 09/21/2006 5:59:06 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
So what is this "third way" you are implying.

Natural selection. Hares with lighter fur are less likely to be seen by hawks on a snowpack. They're more likely to survive and pass on their genes, and of their offspring sitting on snowpacks, the ones with the lightest fur are the most likely to survive in a few generations. The selection isn't random -- there's a very good reason why rabbits with lighter fur survive -- but neither is it designed.


171 posted on 09/21/2006 6:04:46 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Because evolution was not the mechanism by which this country was formed - actually there is no relationship at all.

Actually, there is a considerable analogy here. When two populations become reproductively isolated (much as the US and England were socially and politically isolated), they grow apart via genetic drift and may grow to occupy different niches. At some point, they grow so far apart that they cannot reproduce easily. At a further point, they will be unable to reproduce entirely. But that doesn't mean that only one descendent species can exist.

o you have any supporting evidence for this claim?

Sure! Well, for one, we share more genetic material in common with chimpanzees than chimpanzees share with other apes. That certainly suggests what I'm talking about. I'll try to find a recent paper that shows that.

172 posted on 09/21/2006 6:11:05 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Faith in evolution requires faith that enough molecules accidentally come together ("fall together") in a prebiotic soup to form life from non-life.

So what you are assuming is that the genetic machinery that tells the cell how to produce protein and the protein required to build that genetic machinery both originated gradually and were present and functioning in the first reproducing protocells?

But that does not fit what we observe in the laboratory...In living cells, both DNA and protein depend on each other for existence.

Even if polypeptides had formed in the primordial soup, hydrolysis would have broken them up and destroyed most amino acids. Organic compounds such as amino acids, tend to break down when dissolved in water. The higher the temperature, the faster this breakdown occurs. "…joining many amino acids together to form a protein with a useful biological activity is a much more difficult problem than forming amino acids in the first place. The major problem in hooking amino acids together is that, chemically, it involves the removal of a molecule of water for each amino acid joined to the growing protein chain. Conversely, the presence of water strongly inhibits amino acids from forming proteins….."

These probability models actually give the evolutionist the benefit of doubt when they ignore certain observable, repeatable phenomenon (facts) like hydroysis preventing of formation of polypeptides, and give the evolutionist a huge number of amino acids (even when there is no circumstantial evidence of prebiotic soup), and give the evolutionist a mechanism to put a huge number of them together over and over and over again.....
173 posted on 09/21/2006 7:18:21 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
They're not. But from an evolutionary standpoint they are. You look at similar structures in similar plants, and peanuts are very clearly legumes. I don't care about what they do in your stomach, I care what they do for the plant.

That is called begging the question. Modern horses -- Equus caballus -- only came into existence within the last 3000 years.

You don't know that.
174 posted on 09/21/2006 7:19:39 AM PDT by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
That is called begging the question. Modern horses -- Equus caballus -- only came into existence within the last 3000 years. You don't know that.

Huh? Yes I do -- the evidence is overwhelming that Equus caballus was selectively bred out of Equus ferus populations strating about 3kya. Are you honestly suggesting that the common ancestor of all extant horse, wild ass and zebra species was... a modern horse?

175 posted on 09/21/2006 8:14:40 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
That is called begging the question.

No it isn't. My point is that nutritional content, cooking properties and everything else you bring in is irrelevent to this discussion. Peanuts share a botanical form and function with other legumes, not with nuts. Sorry.

176 posted on 09/21/2006 8:17:34 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; Quix; DaveLoneRanger
IF evolution is geared towards survival....THEN doesn't it also follow that a brain geared for survival is not capable of doing cosmology?

Makes complete sense to me, ConservativeDude! Unless a case can be made that cosmological speculation has survival (fitness) value. You could go into the caves at Lascaux in the French Pyrrannes and find amazing paintings that suggest that the people who lived there, apparently in communities, (dated roughly 25 centuries B.C.) were already dealing with cosmological issues. But that would depend on how you chose to interpret the "evidence" -- the exact same situation that applies to the reading of the fossil record.... I.e., we tend to find what we're looking for: Our presuppositions can and do skew outcomes.

Anyhoot, to me it is senseless to say that "the brain" is "doing" cosmology. I don't think it is the brain that thinks, but the mind. It appears to me that consciousness, like life itself, cannot be reduced to purely material causes. And Darwinism has no clue about the origin of either.

Though people will speculate on such issues in ways consistent with their materialist presuppositions -- and really get no where. An excellent case in point is the abiogenetic origin of life hypothesis, that life spontaneously arises from chemistry under favorable conditions. Darwin never included such speculations in his published work; but in a personal letter to a friend that became public in 1954, he did enthuse about a "warm little pond" scenario....

But Nobelist Francis Crick basically drove a silver stake through the heart of such foolishness when he demonstrated that the progression amino acids -> proteins -> RNA -> DNA simply doesn't happen in nature. This key insight, which arose from information theory, has come to be known as the "Central Dogma" of biology.

In the end, it seems to me that focusing only on material and efficient causes puts Neo-Darwinism in a situation where it's letting the tail [of its desire] wag the dog [of its science]: its methodological materialism precludes it from recognizing that formal and final causes actually do operate in nature. I think science -- especially physics and mathematics -- is increasingly aware that an absolutist materalist reductionism may be creating a false picture of reality.

The "first scientist," Aristotle, thought you needed to consider four causes -- formal, material, efficient, final -- to explain existents in nature, not just two (material and efficient). Problem is the formal and final causes seem to be "non-corporeals." So it's difficult to say just how they operate in nature. Still, to me, this is the million-dollar question....

Thanks so much for your astute and thought-provoking essay/post, ConservativeDude!

177 posted on 09/21/2006 8:18:02 AM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Well put, as always. Thanks.


178 posted on 09/21/2006 8:30:59 AM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Thanks for your kind words, Quix!


179 posted on 09/21/2006 8:55:35 AM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; Whosoever
[ Anyhoot, to me it is senseless to say that "the brain" is "doing" cosmology. I don't think it is the brain that thinks, but the mind. It appears to me that consciousness, like life itself, cannot be reduced to purely material causes. And Darwinism has no clue about the origin of either. ]

If a human is a spirit riding a Donkey(with a brain) then who does the thinking?.. The spirit or the brain?.. Seems to me both are possibilities.. both think.. Therefore you can have a donkey riding a spirit.. or a mix...

This life is obviously a metaphorical donkey rodeo the only question is, who is the passenger?.. or is the spirit walking the donkey(on a leash) or the donkey walking the spirit(on a leash) forgoing riding.. You always taunt with such interesting questions..

The scriptural passage, "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways".. is apropos if true.. Little wonder some would walk.. instead of ride or be ridden..

180 posted on 09/21/2006 9:07:18 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I suppose if repeating arguments I've already conceded or excluded could be called pedantry

You need to read a little closer - I was addressing the argument you conceded.

No would you like to consider the situation where the human is chasing the prey, and the prey is not a carnivore, or not chasing the human?

what kind of non-carnivore are you talking about - an Impala? a Gazelle? a rat?

181 posted on 09/21/2006 9:14:00 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
None of us know all of the creatures that were around three or four or thirty thousand years ago. We certainly don't know what similar looking specimens could mate with others and produce fertile offspring. (If an archeologist in the year 20000 AD came upon a poodle and rottweiler skeleton, not knowing of the existence of either because they died out, he would likely conclude they were different species) Heck, we STILL don't know all the species that are in the world right now. A good scientist doesn't just throw out raw assertions as facts. There is so much we don't know, and a large number of things we THOUGHT we know that have since been disproven or brought into question. ---- No it isn't. My point is that nutritional content, cooking properties and everything else you bring in is irrelevent to this discussion.

It is absolutely relevant. Peanuts are different from legumes in all sorts of ways. Just because a botanist happens to classify them based on how they grow does not mean that peanuts come from some other legume. It is just a handy way to categorize, nothing more. I am glad to see that you no longer pretend that the grocer is "wrong" to put the peanuts in with the other nuts in the supermarket.
182 posted on 09/21/2006 9:19:31 AM PDT by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Hares with lighter fur are less likely to be seen by hawks on a snowpack.

So are you claiming something made this happen (design)?

You are reviewing historic data and applying a rule to it - nothing selected these animals - it just happened. Natural Selection is random because Natural Selection is an observation - not a force or power that can do anything. While black rabbits on the snow would not have a chance - still nothing is doing the selecting - it is random mutation with random success. In the past tense we can apply structures but nothing selected the rabbits.

Read Darwin - if it is not random, it is not evolution.

The selection isn't random -- there's a very good reason why rabbits with lighter fur survive -- but neither is it designed.

Answer the question please - if Natural Selection is not random - what force/god/designer is doing the selecting? What makes the selection?

Nothing designates a creatures ability to survive - it happens randomly.

183 posted on 09/21/2006 9:23:22 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
None of us know all of the creatures that were around three or four or thirty thousand years ago.

Of course we do. We have intact humans from longer ago than that. 3000 years ago was well within the realm of recorded history, in many places.

We certainly don't know what similar looking specimens could mate with others and produce fertile offspring.

No, and without DNA from early Equines, we will likely never know. But we can make a very educated guess, judging from the fact that extant equines (like horses, zebras and asses) cannot normally produce fertile offspring.

Peanuts are different from legumes in all sorts of ways.

Name one.

I am glad to see that you no longer pretend that the grocer is "wrong" to put the peanuts in with the other nuts in the supermarket.

Should grocers pack Swedish Fish in the seafood section too?

184 posted on 09/21/2006 9:28:30 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Actually, there is a considerable analogy here.

An analogy is not a relationship

At some point, they grow so far apart that they cannot reproduce easily

The country cannot reproduce easily? How does a country reproduce?

Sure! Well, for one, we share more genetic material in common with chimpanzees than chimpanzees share with other apes. That certainly suggests what I'm talking about. I'll try to find a recent paper that shows that.

That does not even address your statement "Not only have apes evolved, they have evolved at least as much as humans have evolved."

Can you show that other apes evolved at least as much as humans have evolved? What do you use to measure evolution?

185 posted on 09/21/2006 9:30:04 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
You are reviewing historic data and applying a rule to it - nothing selected these animals - it just happened.

No, in this isntance, the hawks are doing the selecting. Some hares will have alleles leaving them darker, others will have alleles leaving them lighter, and that distribution will be somewhat random. But the fact that the hawks will eat more of the dark ones is anything but random, and it's the hawks that lead to a gradual shift in allele frequencies (aka evolution). Dark hares would have a chance and white hares wouldn't be invulnerable, but over time, lighter hares will clearly be more reproductively succesful than darker hares.

Answer the question please - if Natural Selection is not random - what force/god/designer is doing the selecting?

You're still not getting it. Here, the environment is doing the selecting. In this case, the active selector are the hawks. You either survive to pass on your genes or you don't, and if you don't, you're selected out of the game.

Nothing designates a creatures ability to survive - it happens randomly.

If that were the case, then it wouldn't matter what pigment a hare's fur is -- surival rates would be roughly the same for all populations. Faster rabbits would have no edge over slower rabbits. Smarter rabbits wouldn't be better at foraging for food than dumber rabbits.

186 posted on 09/21/2006 9:37:52 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Can you show that other apes evolved at least as much as humans have evolved? What do you use to measure evolution?

Yes you can. You compare DNA. Humand DNA and Chimpanzee DNA share more in common than Chimp and Gorilla DNA. That says something abot how much other apes have evolved relative to one another.

187 posted on 09/21/2006 9:40:02 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Excellent post. Thank you. Two things I am quite certain of: 1) materialism is false (ie, it doesn't tell the whole story), 2) the presuppositions of evolutionary scientists color everything they do, and many / most are incapable of even acknowledging that they have presuppositions, let alone are they able to rationally discuss them, and this is a problem.



ps - I stole my very truncated version of that point about naturalism being self-defeating from Alvin Plantinga (you probably know that, already though).


188 posted on 09/21/2006 9:54:40 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
Two things I am quite certain of: 1) materialism is false (ie, it doesn't tell the whole story), 2) the presuppositions of evolutionary scientists color everything they do, and many / most are incapable of even acknowledging that they have presuppositions, let alone are they able to rationally discuss them, and this is a problem.

Actually, Conservative Dude, this is THE problem (i.e., the lack of acknowledgement of presuppositions, and so the inability to rationally discuss them).

I'm not familiar with Alvin Plantinga, but would like to be. Please may I have the source for his point about naturalism being self-defeating? I so agree with that assessment!

Thanks so much for your kind words!

189 posted on 09/21/2006 10:01:03 AM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"I don't think it is the brain that thinks, but the mind. It appears to me that consciousness, like life itself, cannot be reduced to purely material causes. And Darwinism has no clue about the origin of either."


If the brain has been programmed only by chance, by random nature, why trust it?

Materialist reduction of ones consciousness to purely a host of biochemical reactions is an problem the evolutionist struggles with....

there are examples of this in evolutionary articles....hold on...providing evidence via quoting what evolutionists write....is defined as quote-mining by definition
190 posted on 09/21/2006 10:54:27 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Two things I am quite certain of: 1) materialism is false (ie, it doesn't tell the whole story), 2) the presuppositions of evolutionary scientists color everything they do, and many / most are incapable of even acknowledging that they have presuppositions, let alone are they able to rationally discuss them, and this is a problem.


perhaps worth adding to that....

3) Materialist presuppositions result in conclusions which are contradictory to the world. The Materialist cannot be consistent to the logic of their presuppositions, because the materialist lives in a reality which was made by something external to matter...God. This being so, Materialist is in a place of tension.

4) Materialists build up walls of protection to shield themselves from the point of tension. The materialist then erects barriers, even if completely irrational or improbable, to try to deal w/ the contradiction of how he observes the world.

5) We must lovingly and with true tears help to remove the shelter/roof and allow the truth of the created world to beat upon the materialist. Removing the irrational and improbable walls of protection is an important first step in communicating with people brainwashed by the materialism of the twentieth century.
191 posted on 09/21/2006 11:11:00 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
You're still not getting it.

Good luck with that! :-D

192 posted on 09/21/2006 11:31:38 AM PDT by ahayes (My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
materialism is false (ie, it doesn't tell the whole story)

You have no evidence that this is true, which makes sense as such evidence is outside the realm of the observable.

the presuppositions of evolutionary scientists color everything they do

Everyone's presuppositions color everything they do, as your post illustrates. The important thing is to be able to identify and evaluate one's presuppositions.

Materialist presuppositions result in conclusions which are contradictory to the world. The Materialist cannot be consistent to the logic of their presuppositions, because the materialist lives in a reality which was made by something external to matter...God.

Once again, no evidence of this, it's outside the realm of the observable. You assume something does exist "out there," and you're taking it on faith that it is God as you think of him and not something or someone else.

Yet you call other people "brainwashed."

193 posted on 09/21/2006 11:36:40 AM PDT by ahayes (My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Original argument is set forth in "Warrent and Proper Function":

http://www.amazon.com/Warrant-Proper-Function-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0195078640/sr=1-1/qid=1158863944/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5918534-0155219?ie=UTF8&s=books

Here is a collection of essays on Plantinga's argument:

http://www.amazon.com/Naturalism-Defeated-Plantingas-Evolutionary-Argument/dp/0801487633

Hope those Amazon links help!


194 posted on 09/21/2006 11:40:50 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; sittnick; ninenot; bornacatholic; Tax-chick; Convert from ECUSA
AK:

Insulto, ergo sum.

Actually, how does one go about insulting someone who sincerely believe that he/she is descended from apes?

If I were to articulate my position, it would be a very long post. Out of consideration, I referenced the the best conservative book of the year which also demolishes the Darwinian fantasy and pretenses quite effectively but has an economy of prose which I find hard to match. Not only that but Ann is quite obviously not related to apes in any way and, besides, I knew her elder brother John about 35 years ago. He's no ape either. Nor am I but I will certainly let you speak for yourself on your own ancestry.

Of course, I never attended a gummint skewel until I attended law school and so I was brought up Catholic and not brought up to believe that I was a trousered ape. I also missed the Marxism, the eugenics, the birth controlism, the abortionism, the environmental whackoism, and other gummint skewel heresies.

Finally, those who argue for the fantasy of a godless universe, with life being strictly temporal and ending in oblivion at death regardless of moral or immoral behavior in life may well not see "pragmatism" (Lenin: You have to break eggs to make omelettes) as amoral or immoral but merely the greatest good for the greatest number and devil take the hindmost in the name of "progress." You have a right to be wrong but you do not have a right to be taken seriously.

195 posted on 09/21/2006 1:10:42 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Thank you so very much, ConservativeDude, for the Amazon links! I'm overdue over there, time to visit again! :^) Definitely I'll check out the Plantinga "Naturalism Defeated...." It's a start.


196 posted on 09/21/2006 2:19:29 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector

Is it your belief that there are no Christian evolution scientists?


197 posted on 09/21/2006 2:55:17 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
"Yes you can. You compare DNA. Humand DNA and Chimpanzee DNA share more in common than Chimp and Gorilla DNA. That says something abot how much other apes have evolved relative to one another."

That will not demonstrate what you claim unless you also have the DNA from chimps millions of years ago. Similar DNA is merely an observation that in and of itself proves nothing - chimps being different than Gorillas is irrelevant. To claim this proves chimps evolved as much as humans is merely an assumption.

198 posted on 09/21/2006 2:58:59 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
No, in this isntance, the hawks are doing the selecting.

Somewhat. Hawks eat what they can - they are not selecting. The end of the process is called natural selection. The animals eat what they can but it is still random - based on random mutation some animals don't get eaten - no matter how you slice it. it is still random and no "force" is controlling it.

You're still not getting it.

I say the same thing to you. You are not getting it. Nothing is directing the selection. Random mutations mean randomly things will survive or not survive. The changes start with a random mutation and the environmental response to this mutation is random (not directed)

Here, the environment is doing the selecting.

Yes but it is still random (not directed)

Let's review:

Random - proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.

If you are claiming Natural Selection is is not random than it most has an aim, reason, or pattern - it does not.

If that were the case, then it wouldn't matter what pigment a hare's fur is -- surival rates would be roughly the same for all populations.

I think you are confused as to the meaning of the word "random"

199 posted on 09/21/2006 3:14:13 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
OK, lets sum this up into one question

You claim Natural Selection is not random

This is the definition of random:

Random - proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.

So if Natural Selection is not random, as you claim, what is the aim, reason, or pattern of Natural Selection?

200 posted on 09/21/2006 3:23:50 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 651-696 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson