uhcord

An infinity amount of space; an infinity amount of universes; an infinity amount of stars; an infinity amount of planets; can lead to an infinity amount of improbable possibilities.

*shrug*

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: vonmeth ]</p>

Skeptical

Thiaoouba,

As others have pointed out, your understanding of evolutionary theory appears extremely flawed. You keep using the word "random" to explain the process of evolution. Evolutionary theory states that while the mutations are random, the results are _not at all random_.

Mutations will likely lead to _less_ fit offspring, not more fit. (this is often repeated by creationists as if it somehow disproves evolutionary theory, which demonstrates their utter lack of knowledge of the theory they claim is false). Only once in a great while will a mutation lead to more fit offspring.

The "fitness" is determined not at "random" but by natural _selection_, an interaction of the offspring with the environment. The fitness of the organism is determined by the environment and the suitability of the changes to cope to the environment. Natural selection is in no way "random". Evolutionary theory has never said it was, only people who don't understand evolutionary theory have said that.

In "The Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith talked about the "invisible hand" of capitalism. The process he described is a natural tendency of capitalism to be self-correcting, as if lead by an "invisible hand" toward stability. This is the same concept used by evolutionary theory. Nature is self-correcting through natural selection of more fit mutations. No one, so far as I know, has claimed that capitalism was created by a "designer", so why would one need to have a "designer" to explain natural selection?

WRT to the statistics used by the MIT prof you mention. Statistics are only as valid as your assumptions. All he showed was that given certain assumptions, the math doesn't work. Change your assumptions, and you'll change the results. The question of what assumptions are correct is empirical, one needs to find the evidence to arrive at a conclusion, one cannot simply assume the conclusions.

Finally, let me restate what you said above in different language: "At this stage of our understanding, all of our evidence points to the idea that no designer is needed. However, despite this evidence, I and others feel that a priori there must be a creator, so therefore at some time in the future we will discover that there in fact was a creator, contrary to the vast amount of evidence we currently have that there was not".

Now, I ask you to be honest with yourself, is this statement one of scientific theory, or is it just a statement of ones religious _belief_ attempting to disguise itself as such. IF science discovers data that cannot be explained through current theories, those theories will have to be revised. Until then, simply saying that we _might_ find more data is simply saying that one thinks we will, which is just an expression of opinion. It's not science and its not a scientific theory.

tronvillain

If he ever comes back, I'd be curious to know where this is accurate:

MrDarwin

From my own experience, it's clear that plant populations, at least, support quite a bit of genetic variation. Some of this variation seems to be entirely irrelevant to the survival of the organism, and some of the variation is extremely relevant in certain situations, i.e., a particular trait may be harmful (or neutral) in one environment but beneficial (or neutral) in another. Widely distributed species tend to exhibit more variation, both within local populations, and correlated with regional distribution; these widely distributed species also appear more likely to fragment into smaller populations where different variations become "fixed". In plants, at least, this seems to be a major mode of speciation.