Changes

You can do it without this little game with the two definitions of design, can't you. Because in your very first senetence you do it straight again. Argue from first structure, and then switch to the definition from origin. So call it ''apparent design''. Or structure. And nature exhibits structure. And there is structure in nature that is not biological.  

You can do it without this little game with the two definitions of design, can't you. Because in your very first senetence you do it straight again. Argue from first structure, and then switch to the definition from origin. So call it ''apparent design''. Or structure. And nature exhibits structure. And there is structure in nature that is not biological.  

Selection is no random at all. That is the the curicial point. If all pandas go exitinct, then that is not random. That penecilin resitant golden stap bacteria increase in frequency is not random.  

Selection is no random at all. That is the the curicial point. If all pandas go exitinct, then that is not random. That cases of infections with penecilin resitant golden stap bacteria increases is not random.  

If your argument is from letters making up a sentence, then you should allow genetic algorithms, because that is exactly how they work, on strings. And don't give me a link telling be that a certain dam example isn't anything like biological evolution. That is argung from a single non-related example. It has been mathematically proven, that the average fitness of a set of sample solutions  multi-dimensional optimisation problems of finite dimensionalisty, will improve from one iteration to the next under a scheme of mutations and selection. Your string with about 30 charaters is peanuts compared to optimisation problems that have been tackles with such algorithms.

If your argument is from letters making up a sentence, then you should allow genetic algorithms, because that is exactly how they work, on strings. And don't give me a link telling be that a certain dam example isn't anything like biological evolution. That is argung from a single non-related example. It has been mathematically proven, that the average fitness of a set of sample solutions  multi-dimensional optimisation problems of finite dimensionalisty, will improve from one iteration to the next under a scheme of mutations and selection. Your string with about 30 charaters is peanuts compared to optimisation problems that have been tackles with such algorithms.

So, and I am a bit dissapointed that you gave up to provide an example. It seems like you cannot come up with evidence for your own position, but only criticise the position of others. And that is why you ask me for an example, rather than do your own homework. You still operate under the assumption that I want to convice you of evolution, while my position merely that your posuition is mostly unfounded. If you cannot give a single example for something where the lack of purpose implies randomness, your claim that lack of purpose implies randomess can't be that strong.  [[User:Order|Order]] 09:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)

So, and I am a bit dissapointed that you gave up to provide an example. If you cannot give a single example for something where the lack of purpose implies randomness, your claim that lack of purpose implies randomess can't be that strong.  It seems like you cannot come up with evidence for your own position, but only criticise the position of others. Creationists are often blamed for arguing along the line "you cannot explain everything therefore my explanation must be right". We all know that that is a poor argument. It seems like you ask me for an example, rather than do your own homework, becuase this is the only way you know to argue your case. You still operate under the assumption that I want to convice you of evolution, or the the big bang, while my position merely that you should be able to admit to yourself that your view could be wrong.  [[User:Order|Order]] 09:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)

===Interpretations===

===Interpretations===