Sensible contribution Stephen, but you must admit it's not reassuring to think of oneself as the result of a number of dice throws. If you go down that slope, the next thing you lose is your own free will isn't it?
Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Mindless crap shoot of evolution > > > OrionWorks wrote: >> A recent comment from the esteemed Mr. Malloy got me to thinking... >> >> Thomas sez: >> >> >>> I'm reading John Sanford's Genetic Entropy and The >>> Mystery of the Genome. Dr. Sanford makes the case that >>> most mutations are deleterious, if not fatal, to the >>> individual. > > I actually thought anyone who'd spent more than about 10 minutes studying > biology knew that > already. I'm surprised Dr. Sanford felt it was a "case" in need of "making". > >>> He contends that the web of life won't last >>> much longer. The primary thesis of the book is an attack >>> on the Primary Axiom of Evolutionary Biology, that >>> random mutations can spontaneously produce more >>> complicated and more fit life forms. >>> >>> I'm also reading Vance Ferrell's The Evolution Cruncher, >>> a 900 page expose on the absurdity of Evolution. >>> >> >> >> So, I thinks to myself...something I find ironic about many thinly >> veiled religious scribblings on why Darwin's Theory of Evolution alone >> cannot by itself explain the progressive complexity of life is that it >> seems to be based on a profound sense of distrust of the observed >> rules of randomness. > > Nah, it's simpler than that. Assuming the person making the argument isn't > just rationalizing a > religious assertion that the set of species is static, the real argument, I > think, is this: > > ** I don't understand how it works so it's false. > > This has a corollary which is often applied: > > ** I don't understand how it works so anyone who says they do is lying. > > This is a very powerful pair of arguments, which are often used to debunk > such diverse piles of > nonsense as the theory of relativity, the claim that cold fusion exists, and > the totally absurd > claim that the WTC north and south towers might have fallen due to airplane > crashes. > > I've seen these same powerful arguments applied to disprove Newton's theory > of mechanics, come to > think of it -- but that use is a bit rarer; most people who don't understand > Newtonian mechanics > keep the fact to themselves rather than crowing about it. >
