Re: Journalist Article on Gun Running.

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:11t56146c6idl70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>
> "Dr. Dickie" <Dr_Dickie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dqtaeh$mli$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:dqs01m$8fv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> # "Dr. Dickie" <Dr_Dickie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> # news:dqqme3$lf9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: #
>> #> Evolution is the process by which successful mutations survive and
>> lesser # ones do not.
>> #
>> # Evolution is the result of mutations.
>> #
>> # --
>> # Jim Yanik
>> # jyanik
>> # at
>> # kua.net
>>
>> Correct, evolution is when a mutation (by virtue of the environment)
>> gives an organism an competitive advantage. Because of the advantage,
>> that organism (and its offspring) survive to a greater degree than
>> organisms without the mutation; therefore, over time, the organisms
>> with that mutation become the dominate species. No mutation, no
>> evolution. Of course, the trick is only those mutations that confer
>> an advantage get passed on in the long run. And a mutation that may be
>> an advantage in one environment, could be a disadvantage in another
>> environment, and then finally, environments change over time.
>> Therefore, when someone says fully evolved, that is only for the
>> moment and has nothing to do with higher order. Sharks are highly
>> evolved, they ain't bright, but they fill the niche nicely. So yeah,
>> you can have mutations without evolution, but you cannot have
>> evolution without mutations. Its not really a complex concept (but it
>> does get complicated), and yet I have never seen one TV show yet that
>> even had a clue as to what evolution was (science fiction without
>> science)--outside of a science special on something like Nova.
>>
>
> So now comes the question
> Is the process of mutation/evolution a totally random one ?
> Or does it follow some set of rules.
> And if there are rules to it
> Where did the rules come from ?
> Did the just emerge from the chaos of the "big bang" ?
> Or was there some intelligent design behind the process ?
> And this is the point where the secularists get red in the face and hot
> in the collar and start babbling about religion...
>
>
>

It's funny isn't it? The creationists take a step to the center and embrace
the science of genetic selection over time but when they ask simply about
the randomness or not of the flow the secularists still stamp thier feet and
screech.

It's like the gaping holes in the fossil record and unexplainable nature of
certain "evolutions", the angler fish's worm for example (what was the
survival value of all the intermediate mutations from regular fish to fish
with fake worm in his mouth) fill them with fear that somehow thier
"rational" belief systems might somehow be undermined by dwelling on this
particular issue of randomness.

Thier anger seems more like a real fanatic reacting to a blasphemer, what
they accuse others of.
.

Loading