[...]
>
>Ok time for one of my favorite molecular biologists quotes:
>
It seems to me that I have already discussed the errors in this
quote previously, with no response from you. Its bad form to
continue to post stuff ignoring the objections that have been
previously enumerated.
>"The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the
>degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a
>continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the Origin
>of the Species; and throughout the past century there has always existed a
>significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to
>bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims...
>
This is very nice, Randy, but its a strawman since Darwinians do
not claim that pure chance "achieved the degree of complexity and
ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature". Richard Dawkins, in his new
book <Climbing Mount Improbable>, goes to great pains to distance
himself from such a notion as this. Darwinism involves random
mutations + natural selection. Natural selection is about as opposite
from pure chance as one could get. Interestingly, random mutations
is not even pure chance in the sense that that word is used in
probability. In Darwinism, random as in random mutation means
only that the appearance of a mutation does not anticipate the
needs of an organism. It does not mean that one particular mutation
is selected at random from the vast number of possible mutations
with equal probability.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |