2,002
edits
Changes
→Scientific Claims
: You appear to be missing the point in the last paragraph. The link didn't show evolution working with the dam example. It showed ''natural selection'' working, but natural selection is not evolution, and it showed that natural selection only worked because you had design to start with. Your last sentence is not what I was claiming.
: You appear to be missing the point in the last paragraph. The link didn't show evolution working with the dam example. It showed ''natural selection'' working, but natural selection is not evolution, and it showed that natural selection only worked because you had design to start with. Your last sentence is not what I was claiming.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 16 December 2007 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 16 December 2007 (EST)
If you use "random" without purpose or design, you cannot use probabilistic arguments anymore. If you define "random" as without purpose, you are right, evolution is random. But you still can't argue from probability, under this definition. And saying that "random" means "without design" is a funny definition. Evolution doesn't claim that it is "without design", it is actually all about design.
If you can implement true-randomness is a somewhat philosophical debate, but a hot cup of coffee will get a long way.
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)
===Interpretations===
===Interpretations===