From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:55:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFAE37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B4943E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:55:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89IsOGd094610; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:54:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89IsNOb094584; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:54:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:54:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CDA95.2D2EE45C@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909114207.U9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > Evolution in this case is merely a useful theory, in that its > > > application gives predictive results in the problem domain of > > > *what* mutations will survive the ambient selection pressures. > > > > So explain to me again what "selection" is in the context of a > > non-theistic worldview. > > I guess I have to ask "why ``again'', wasn't ``once'' enough?". > > Natural selection:=09The process by which individuals=92 inherited > =09=09=09needs and abilities are more or less closely > =09=09=09matched to resources available in their > =09=09=09environment, giving those with greater > =09=09=09"fitness" a better chance of survival and > =09=09=09reproduction. So what is the criteria for determining "fitness"? Those who survive? But then this just leads us into a logical tautology, whereby the mechanism for evolution amounts to "the survival of the survivors." > > *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody does the selection, why keep > > calling it selection? > > Because it's the technically correct word to use to describe the > operation of a fitness function. How is "fitness" determined? > > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > > evolutionary theory? > > Nature *is* concrete, *not* abstract. There is no reifying of > nature happening here. You can only reify an *abstract* thing. Sorry. Wrong word. What I meant was "personify." > > "Selection" implies intentionality, > > To people without a complex vocabulary. Perhaps it was a bad choice > to use the compound word "natural selection", since it permits those > people to make this mistake. Actually it is an oxymoron invented by natural biologists to obscure the fact (from themselves, as well as others) that evolutionary theory implies an absurdity. > > something which according to evolutionists is not necessary to > > explain the highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". > > It's not. > > > If we use Occam's razor to shave off all the philosophical and > > religious baggage from evolution, what is left except an assertion > > that life spontaneously arose "by chance"? > > With theologians still able to claim that God controls chance, of > course. Actaully theologians would never admit to such an absurd concept. If controlled by God, it is not random at all. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message