Thomas sez: > The Cruncher's point being that there aren't enough seconds, > throwing the dice once per second, over the past 15,000,000,000 > years to have tried all the potential combinations. And that's > just for the first genome. Stanford's point is that the system > is deteriorating, it's evolution in reverse
And Stanford's point being? Trying "...all the potential combinations" is not the goal for which the theory of evolution was ever based on, never was. All that is necessary is to stumble into combinations that work better than the previous set of combinations. That's doable. The process doesn't take a million jillion years of dice throwing. If Stanford can't comprehend that very basic point what are we to make of his basic grasp of the theory of evolution? An old friend of mine, Richard, (from another group) described the process, a highly simplified variation, as follows: ... > But seriously, folx. While MUTATION may be random, NATURAL > SELECTION is anything but, a fact that seems to have been > totally lost on the neo-creationists behind "intelligent" > design. > > Think about this. You're rolling 5 dice, with the object of > getting the highest score possible. You're allowed a maximum > of 4 rolls. For each roll, you're allowed to set aside dice > that you're happy with and only re-roll the rest. > > * Roll A: 6, 5, 3, 3, 1 = 18 -- set aside the 6 > * Roll B: 5, 4, 2, 1 -- don't set any aside > * Roll C: 6, 5, 1, 1 -- set aside the 6 and the 5 > * Roll D: 4, 2 -- you're stuck with these > * Final Score: 6, 6, 5, 4, 2 = 23 (out of a max of 30) Anyone studying deadly bacterial strains and antibiotics knows the consequences of that process all too well. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
