Re: Prof Waagen says evolution is not by chance as Darwin supposed

On Sep 19, 12:09 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C05E7DA1F30EE3ABC4D53...

"...Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance or
by accident, as Darwin at one time supposed, but through a continues
and well-ordered process, has since been confirmed by a volume to
testimony , so that we are now able to assemble and place in order
line after line of animals in their true evolutionary succession,
extending...over millions of years...."

Do evolution happen by chance? On this thread
[[EvolutionaryEventsByChance]]http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/051fb14...
the AAAS says that evolution happens by chance. J.J. Lodder walked
into my trap and assumed I was asking the question, instead I
reformulated a statement by the AAAS as a question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Heinrich_Waagenstates "...Waagen
advocated the theory of evolution or mutation for certain series of
fossils...." In what way would this "evolution" and the intent
Osbourne was trying to convey differ from the intent the AAAS had with
"evolution"? Again who's version of "evolution" am I supposed to
believe?

From thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarticle it not clear

wether "evolution" - whatever it supposed to mean happens by chance or
not. What would be nice is if the evolutionists actually formally
state what exactly is the Theory of Evolution and how it differs or
convergence with the intent conveyed by a person saying that he
"evolved" in a progressive manner. I am still looking for the formal
definition of the Theory of Evolution....I doubt we will ever get the
formal definition of the Theory of Evolution from the evolutionists.
Osbourne in the article states by grandiose authority that "evolution"
has moved from hypothesis to theory to formal law. Well Kepler's laws
of planetary motion are in a sense a formal law, I am just pointing
out that the reason there is no Theory of Evolution is that
evolutionists can't even agree wether "evolution" happens by chance or
not or how they deal with the directional intent authors in the New
York Times had with "evolution" in the 1930's compared with the non-
directional intent as espoused by Sapolsky. If only people would stop
using one word - evolution- for 50million different intent

You talk about chance when you're talking about particular, one-off
situations.

For example:
- certain mutations happening in one population (and not in another).
- historical contingency: a particular group of animals, with
particular traits, just happened to find itself in a particular spot,
at a particular time.

You talk about necessity, laws, when you're talking about things that
can be generalized.

for example:
- mutation will necessarily lead to a general increase in variation in
a population.
- given particular conditions, natural selection will necessarily to a
particular outcome.

What I'm trying to say is that the same situation, some group fish
crawling onto land and evolving into amphibians, can be analyzed in
terms of chance and necessity, both are valid perspectives.

.

Relevant Pages