Re: Comments on Snoke's approach

From: Ted Davis <>
Date: Mon Sep 26 2005 - 18:52:30 EDT

Listening today to Ken Miller's testimony at the Harrisburg "intelligent
design" trial (opening day), I do not have the impression that evolution is
"a theory not well grounded in science." Miller placed particular emphasis
on the presence in humans and other primates, of pseudogenes on specific
chromosomes that are highly indicative of common ancestry. The biologists
here (including Cornelius) will know a lot more about this recent discovery
than I will and can comment more fully. But this doesn't strike me as the
type of evidence that one can just invent or easily misinterpret: those
genes apparently have no functions (at least none yet known), and thus it
does not make sense to claim (as some apparently have) that they are a
common design feature. They do appear to be "mistakes" that appear in
similar locations b/c they have a common source.


>>> "Cornelius Hunter" <> 09/24/05 3:08 PM >>>

It is not surprising that evolution, a theory not well grounded in science,

continues to propagate credulous speculation. The inevitable response to
questions of complexity and astronomical design spaces, is that evolution
isn't random after all. It is really a guided search process, homing in on

those functional designs. Furthermore, the evolutionary process itself
evolves, fixing itself so that it works right.

The reason usually given for evolution being non random is natural
selection. Natural selection guides the search process, right? Well
actually, no it doesn't. All natural selection does is kill off the non
competitive designs. That unguided biological variation still must luckily

hit upon the right designs for natural selection to preserve (because it
works better than the less competitive designs). So we're back to the
problem of needing astronomically large populations, bigger than the all
electrons that could pack into the universe, by many orders of magnitude.

Think of it this way. Every biological design, and every species on this
planet would have had to have been created by nothing more than random
biological variation. All natural selection does is kill off the chaff in
the process. In fact, this is not all. Every one of those designs and
species has to have a functional pathway leading to it. That is, from that

first warm little puddle, not only must unguided random variation create
everything from the DNA code to the human brain, but it must do so in small

steps such that the intermediate is functional.

Nonetheless evolutionists speak of "selection pressure" as though natural
selection was indeed influencing the biological variation. At the risk of
sounding teleological, such language gets the complexity monkey off their
back. Of course, the idea of evolution evolving itself is equally
teleological and credulous. But this is in fact what evolutionists must
conclude given what we now understand about adaptation.

This is what happens when religion dabbles in science.


From: "Pim van Meurs" <>
> Or that the argument is wrong? In this case you are presuming that full
> DNA space needs to be searched. Secondly, Darwinian theory is not based
> an unguided search process (random search) but rather a guided search.
> Once one realizes that the relevance of the concept of evolvability and
> how evolution itself can evolve one comes to realize why evolution has
> been so succesful.
Received on Mon Sep 26 18:54:15 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 26 2005 - 18:54:15 EDT