>Susan (from superb website)
> >"However, mutations appear to be spontaneous in most instances. That does
> >not mean that they
> > occur without cause but, rather, that the specific cause is almost always
> >unknown." It seemed like the *true* agnostic position.
>
>Bertvan:
>So we can on occasions agree, Susan. Cause unknown! (Might or might not be
>design.) Could even be God. The only evolution I ever questioned was "a
>gradual accumulation of micro evolution, small random mutations, without
>design or purpose, creating complexity by natural selection". If the cause
>is unknown, no one knows whether or not variations are random. No one knows
>whether the "watchmaker" was blind or whether he knew exactly what he was
>doing. If the variations are not random, they have no need for natural
>selection. They work the first time they appear.
They work the first time they appear? Yet one of the prime arguments that
creationists and other free spirits have used is that "most mutations are
harmful". Why would that be if the mutations are not random? "Bad"
mutations are random and "good" mutations are designed? I just love
having my cake and eating it, too. :)
> I don't think ID people
>have any quarrel with "unknowns".
I doubt if anyone does, Bertvan. Unknowns leave plenty of room
for everyone's pet hobby horse.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 14:42:18 EDT