From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 9:26: 0 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 E9BB337B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:25:57 -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 62DAC43E6E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:25:57 -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 g89GObGd009362; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:24:37 -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 g89GOa2H009359; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:24:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:24:36 -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: <3D7A3908.41093D70@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909091647.J9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > > > > the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > > > > theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. > > > > > > It is predictive of the mutuations. Among other things, this > > > allows us to use statistics and predictive models to decide > > > which flu to manufacture vaciones for, and which flu to ignore. > > > > *How* is evolution predictive of the mutations? One doesn't need > > to be an evolutionist in order to make such predictions. > > Evolution in this case is merely a useful theory, in that its > applicaiton 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. *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody does the selection, why keep calling it selection? Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save evolutionary theory? "Selection" implies intentionality, something which according to evolutionists is not necessary to explain the highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". 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"? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message