You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #16: There is nobody who claims that evolution is merely random. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. There is nobody who claims that evolution is merely random.
That is a misconception perpetuated by people who don't really understand evolutionary theory. The mutations that are the raw material of evolution are random, but the selection is non-random. It wouldn't be selection if it were random.

To say that something occurs by natural means is not the same thing as saying that it is random. For example, there is nobody who argues against a naturalistic explanation for the organization of water molecules in a snowflake, even though they are highly ordered giving rise to very complex and beautiful forms. In much the same way, the selection that gives rise to different biological forms is non-random.

Particular mutations are selected for by particular environmental parameters, so that some genetic configurations are favored over others. This is a VERY different phenomenon from genetic drift which is a change in gene frequency that is largely random, and is not thought to be a major factor in Darwinian evolution.

I do not discount the possibility that a higher power could have some hand in evolutionary change, but it seems to me that it is largely untestable and therefore belongs more to the province of philosophy than science. If someone can come up with some genuine testable hypotheses that could provide some sort of empirical evidence for ID, then I think that should be explored scientifically, but I haven't seen any evidence for it so far. What I have seen is mostly politically and religiously motivated people playing semantic games with the words of scientists in order to try to manipulate people who do not have a good understanding of science into accepting their political agenda. I find that unconscionable, and believe that it is no way to choose a science curriculum for public schools.

If you are interested in learning more about the real facts of evolutionary theory, I would strongly recommend that you check out this site. http://www.talkorigins.org/

Welcome to DU by the way.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC