nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 598:
Line 598: + + + +
→Scientific Claims: Without purpose means statistically random
Of yes the selection bit in the article. That was indeed an interesting bit, that I forgot to mention. First, the authors claim that selection is working, and not producing random results. Then they claim that evolution is only working if the rate of mutation is big. And then they claim that evolution with little mutation is actually selection. And that it therefore cannot work. Can these authors make up their mind if selection works or not? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:16, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Of yes the selection bit in the article. That was indeed an interesting bit, that I forgot to mention. First, the authors claim that selection is working, and not producing random results. Then they claim that evolution is only working if the rate of mutation is big. And then they claim that evolution with little mutation is actually selection. And that it therefore cannot work. Can these authors make up their mind if selection works or not? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:16, 16 December 2007 (EST)
: I mentioned that I didn't follow all that you were saying, but with your last post I think I understand better what you were getting at. Although I mean "without purpose", it follows that it will also be statistically random. Therefore you ''can'' use probability arguments. If nobody purposely designed life, then it had to come together by chance interaction of molecules, but you can use probability arguments to show that the chances of this are zero.
: "Design" requires a ''designer''. No designer: no design, and you're back to chance.
: I think you are reading things into the article. Please explain where the author (singular) makes all these inconsistent claims.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 17 December 2007 (EST)
===Interpretations===
===Interpretations===