Subj: Re: ID vs. ?
> >
>>Bertvan:
>>If there is only one earth, there was no "survival of the fittest".
>Chris
>There's no "survival of the fittest" in the way individual organisms
>evolved? Again: What is the evidence for this? I agree that the Earth has
>evolved (i.e., changed over time), but how is this like the evolution of
>individual organisms?
Hi Chris,
There is some evidence that "survival of the fittest" might have played a
part in micro-evolution. The question of whether it could account for
increased complexity is being debated. I, personally, have seen no
convincing "evidence" that RM&NS creates complexity. RM&NS is merely the
only naturalistic assumption materialists can think of to account for the
creation of complexity. If it satisfies you, fine.
The earth not only adjusts to changes; it also has increased in complexity.
That increase in complexity was entirely internal, and did not involved
competition between competing "earths". I suspect the increase in
complexity of individual organisms is also internal, and has very little to
do with RM&NS. People mutter about hox genes being responsible, but the
truth is, we have no idea how hox genes might create complexity. Our
understanding of these processes is rudimentary. To attribute it to "natural
order" or Kauffman's "order for free" seems the same (to me) as attributing
it to "intelligent design". No one is questioning evolution defined as
"change over time" took place. It is RM&NS, commonly referred to as
Darwinism. (Darwin's only contribution to evolutionary theory was RM&NS!!!)
I am not going to repeat evidence for or against the Gaia concept as
expressed by scientists. It is available in great detail for all sides of
the controversy, and I have nothing original to add. My purpose in posting
on this board is to insist that one doesn't even have to be religious to
question "random variation and natural selection" as an explanation of
nature's complexity. I feel compelled to repeat that as long as people
declare that anyone supporting ID is a creationist. Or, if we all can agree
publicly that anyone is a creationist who doesn't believe life arose
accidentally from inert chemicals. In that case, creationists would probably
greatly out-number naturalists - and people would proudly acknowledge being
"creationists".
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 14:31:38 EDT