as far as I know, living systems are made of matter. There's no
*particular* reason to believe that organic chemicals can't self-organize.
>But it does seem obvious that all biological systems are
>self-organizing. Is that accepted by most neo Darwinists? Self organization
>implies some kind of script, blueprint, plan or order, to me. At least,
>until we know how biological system organize themselves, there is no reason
>to deny it might be according to some design.
I"m not much into chemstry but I think there are a limited number of
specific ways that chemicals can organize themselves.
>If biological systems are self
>organizing, there would be no reason to assume mutations are random, would
>there?
why not? what governs which genes will make an error in replication? or
which genes get damaged (or just changed) by radiation?
>And no need for Natural Selection to "design" any new organs, systems
>or body parts, would there? Natural selection might be just a minor
>screening process to eliminate failures, those organisms which didn't come
>out according to plan, mightn't it?
actually, that's *exactly* what natural selection is. It's a weeding
process. Whose plan?
>Random mutation and natural selection
>as an explanation of macro evolution is the part of evolution of which I am
>skeptical. While I hear more and more scientists share my skepticism,
It is very obviously *one* of the mechanisms of evolution. I think the
scientist's skepticism you are hearing about is whether or not it's the
*only* mechanism. And that skepticism is in the past, since additional
mechanisms are now known.
Susan
-----------
Life is short, but it's also very wide.