><< Huxter:
>>> >And why do you insist on using that moniker? Whne[pardon my typo]
>>>>referring to
> >>>evolutionists?
>
> Bertvan:
>>> Because I am not necessarily skeptical of "evolution", only Darwin's
> >>version: random mutation and natural selection. This is true of most IDs.
>
>>Huxter I wasn't aware that Darwin said anything about mutations. How many
>actual
>>Darwinists do you know? You do realize, skepticism or no, there is evidence
>>for selection, right?
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Huxter, Are you telling me "random mutation and natural selection" isn't
>Darwin's term?
No it isn't. Darwin didn't know about genes, genetic mutations or genetic
replication errors. He talked in terms of "variations." Variation in
populations is a no-brainer. Everyone has noticed how different their own
children are from each other, for example. Darwin couldn't explain why
variations occurred but it was pretty obvious to him, and any passing
stranger, that they exist.
>(It's not my bible and I don't keep a copy handy, but I'm
>sure someone else on the list knows whether Darwin actually used the term.) .
> Some form common ancestry was discussed decades before Darwin, and I believe
>Darwin's contribution was the theory that life's complexity was the result of
>small random changes, (without plan, purpose or design) , and that those
>organism with the most advantageous (complex?) changes thrived and produced
>progeny at the expense of those lacking such advantageous mutations.
this is a breathtaking rendition of evolution. In a population with
variations (and they all have them) some individuals will have advantages
if the environment changes suddenly. If there is a sudden drought, a
drought tolerant plant or animal will survive better (not at the expense
of) its neighbors. Darwin noticed--though he could not explain why--that an
advantage like drought-tolerance got inherited by subsequent generations.
Complexity is a creationist bugbear has nothing to do with it. Organisms
pretty much reached maximum complexity millions of years ago.
>Thus
>natural selection supposedly (gradually) "designed" complex organisms. (If
>this is not your belief, we might not necessarily be in disagreement.)
I'd love to see Huxter's answer to this last :-)
> The only person on the list I've asked if they believe random mutation and
>natural selection created life's complexity was Susan, and she proudly
>announced she did. Most who write about evolution acknowledge the term,
>"random mutation and natural selection". Certainly Dawkins does, as does
>Gould.
mutations undeniably occur. Natural selection undeniably occurs. Both have
been observed. Whether mutations are random or not can't be observed. They
look random, but they could be directed by little green guys from Planet
Nine--not God, of course. Even if they are not random they provide the
variation for natural selection to work upon. Natural selection isn't
random at all.
>Any biologist who questions "random mutation and natural selection"
>as the designer of life's complexity is promptly attacked as an
>anti-evolutionist, such as Denton or Behe.
Behe (I don't know much about Denton, except that he seems to be a
Platonist) doesn't "deny" natural selection or mutations. Behe says that he
doesn't understand how some biological systems could possibly have evolved
step-wise and therefore they must have been "poofed" into existence by
somebody (not God, of course).
>Both believe in common descent.
>Our own Steve Jones believes in common descent, as do most people supporting
>ID. If anyone admits they don't know how life's complexity arose, I don't
>disagree with them.
Neither do I. If they say "I don't know" I'll agree that they say they "I
don't know."
>Yes, I know selection probably occurs. It selects
>traits and genes already in the gene pool. I question that it is responsible
>for creating complex, novel organs, systems and body parts. Those were
>"created" by the "mutations". I'm skeptical that those mutations occurred
>without plan, purpose, or design. Since that is something that can be
>neither proved nor disproved at this point, I insist that everyone is
>entitled to their own judgement on the matter.
your work is done. Everyone is entitled to their own judgment on the
matter. However, if they try to prove their beliefs with logic or evidence
then those things can and will be critiqued. Live with it.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 14 2000 - 12:55:40 EDT