Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Everything happens by pure chance. Right?
- coder_csharp6 wrote:
> --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:Which textbook is this?
>> Evolution ahppens through selection, and that is the very
>> opposite of "chance".
> According to my college-level biology textbook it states that
> according to Darwin, inherited variations among individuals, which
> occur in every natural population, are a matter of chance.
I personally prefer looking at the raw data and journals.
Inherited variations are, simplistically, a combination of genetic
mutations and natural selection through adaptation to the environmental
niche that organism exists in. When taking into account matters like
genetic drift, I find it hard to take at face value claims of "random"
and "chance". The reality is a lot more complicated and interesting.
> Natural selection is chance! And if chance is not true as you say then...or, and I wonder if this occurred to you, perhaps your texbook is er
> you either contradict yourself or support creationism.
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
- The Beak of the Finch is a great book to read about scientists observing
natural selection and speciation (at its beginnings) in action. Researchers
living on several Galapagos Islands and meticulously capturing and measuring
seven physical attributes of every member of each of the finch species on
the island. No merely sampling, but actually measuring the population. Great
research and good reading.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Everything happens by pure chance. Right?
> On 2 Mar 2006 at 4:09, coder_csharp6 wrote:
>> --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge
>> <doldridg@...> wrote:
>> I don't disagree with evolution as a whole. It is _natural
>> selection_ that I disagree with.
> Natural selection is actually quite simple and is readily
> observed. Reproductive success varies from individual to
> individual. Some genetic variations affect reproductive success,
> at least on a statistical level. That is to say, for example,
> the creature with light-sensitive patches on its upper surface
> can sense up from down (not always clear in an aquatic
> environment if you can't see the light). And, perhaps more
> important, it can sense the shadow of a predator swimming above.
> This may or may not help a particular individual to reproduce,
> but statistically, those possessing it will reproduce more and
> more often, spreading the genetics responsible for the variation.
> This is not mere speculation, many tests have been made.
> Dave Oldridge
> ICQ 1800667
> Yahoo! Groups Links