Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:54:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909114207.U9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D7CDA95.2D2EE45C@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020909114207.U9219-100000>