Replies

"If it were causal to derision, we’d have a Ronald Reagan Day, George W. Day, and Winston Churchill Day."

--Darwin Day is certainly nothing official, just something tossed about on Feb 12, much like - well - what we just had for Reagan this past Feb 6. And actually "Ronald Reagan Day" is more official than Darwin Day is.

"There is plenty of people around (like me) who think very little of Darwinian scientists, based not on evolution, but on their insistance that evolution is both chance and purposeful (it can’t be both), depending on which side of the coin helps them make their case."

--I'm not sure what that is a reference to. There are elements of evolution that are chance (mutations) and elements that are not (selection). I don't know why anyone would see that as problematic though.

--I'm not sure what that is a reference to. There are elements of evolution that are chance (mutations) and elements that are not (selection). I don't know why anyone would see that as problematic though.

Presumably, all evolution from one species to another must rely on mutation, as it is impossible to selectively breed a dog to be a turtle. With mutation, there is no reason to believe that anything evolves "in order to do something". Species simply mutate and that mutation is either good, bad, or neutral in relation to increasing its share in the gene pool.

There is no reason to believe that Giraffes evolved long necks in order to better compete. A bazillion animals graze/forage below the 6' level and there is nor reason to believe that the giraffes ancestors just couldn't survive without adapting. It makes more sense to presume that their was a mutation that caused longer and longer necks, and the species learned to adapt to it, as it didn't significantly prevent it from reproducing. This linear mutation is also a far better explanation of something like the giraffe's neck than natural selection is, as minute differences (1 mm longer) have no measurable natural advantage. Likewise a wild mutation would likely never get into the gene pool, and if it did, it would be quickly dispersed.

That is what I mean, when I say that you can't presume purpose in evolution, only known outcome. I concede that a purpose driven mutation mechanism might exist, that would be non-Darwinian in nature, but that is an unknown.

I once saw a batter hit a softball and strike the top of the outfield post. It bounced straight up, and eventually came to rest right on top of that 12' outfield post. There was nothing special about that ball's trajectory, unless you considered the place that it came to rest special. I think evolutionary scientists tend to see every current outcome as being the top of that post, wherein truth every ball's flight can be seen as a very complicated and one of a kind occurence.