On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:28:14 -0600, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>BV> I would prefer
>>evolution to remain a mystery than adopt "random mutation and natural
>>selection" as an explanation, merely because I couldn't think of anything
>>better.
SB>both mutation and natural selection have been observed to occur hundreds if
>not thousands of times. I think the ship done sailed on that one. If the
>evidence of the eyes of many people is not enough for you, then you will
>have to stick your head in the sand and just let it reamain a mystery to
>*you*.
It is not good enough that "both mutation and natural selection have been
observed to occur hundreds if not thousands of times".
What Neo-Darwinism claims, and therefore needs to show, is that *every*
last mutation in the 3.85 billion year history of life has been random with
respect to adaptive improvement.
But as Opadia-Kadima points out, this is a "belief in the creative power of
chance" which "equalled or surpassed the Christian belief in the creative
power of God":
"Because of the euphoria which attended the triumph of Darwinism, the
effect of those experiments on the thinking on evolution was most
profound. First, the long-held conjecture that chance alone produced the
favourable variations which natural selection preserved was deemed,
without any justification, to have been experimentally verified. Then
everything that evolved was designated the lucky beneficiary of chance.
Enzymes, proteins, and even man himself, were held to be the products of
mere chance. In short, the biologists' belief in the creative power of chance
soon equalled or surpassed the Christian belief in the creative power of
God." (Opadia-Kadima G.Z., "How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray,"
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1987, vol. 124, 127-135, 129).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"In short, it is clear that Darwin's success was due to several common vices
as well as to several uncommon virtues. His gifts as an observer in all fields
concerned with the needs of a theory of evolution were extraordinary. His
industry and patience in collecting and editing his own observations as well
as other people's were hardly less remarkable. On the other hand, his ideas
were not, as he imagined, unusually original. He was able to put his ideas
across not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his
opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his
admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by
personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue."
(Darlington C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol.
201, May 1959, p66)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------