I think the issue the author has is that what he is defining NS as is not NS. What I can gather about the author's views is that he seems to think NS needs to present a clear choice for each of its “decisions” before it is made. Since we do not know everything about everything yet it is impossible to make the predictions this author seems to be requiring. It may be possible in the future to do exactly what the author wants, but just because we can’t currently does not invalidate NS as a theory nor would it if we can't make predictions because it would require us to know the future (know when mutations happen and how they affect a species). Additionally large amount of what we know about science is gathered in this form. We see something, we make a prediction, we see if it is right, and we then refine and retest. It is through this process that we come to know something.
Ultimately the author also seems to be searching for a unifying theory of nature; something that we can put variables into and gets some sort of predictable result out of. While there may be a unifying theory for physics there is not one for biology. Life and biology are variable by nature and NS does not try to be a unifying theory; NS intent is to be a mechanism for evoltuion.
Ultimately the author also seems to be searching for a unifying theory of nature; something that we can put variables into and gets some sort of predictable result out of. While there may be a unifying theory for physics there is not one for biology. Life and biology are variable by nature and NS does not try to be a unifying theory; NS intent is to be a mechanism for evoltuion.
My best guess about the authors intention is not to deny NS in and of itself, but to change the definition of NS so that it is nothing more than an observation. Though maybe he'd like to change the naming (not sure into what).
The thing is that when NS is an observation and only an observation, it can no longer be an explanation for many features we observe in nature. Things that are specific to a species and help it to survive are then only maintained by NS, but not caused to develop by NS.
Maybe not everything, but many things.
You may be wondering where this author stands, well, he appears to have his own subvariant of ID, but he doesn't want to start with the bible (I havn't found any quotes from the bible and only 2 short quotes from (fellow?) creationists).
How he explains for many a feature is interesting, but should not really matter for this discussion though.
As for a unifying theory for all of nature, today, tomorrow in in a thousand years. Well, I think we can all agree that we don't know nearly enough, but the point is that NS (and taken one step further: evolution or darwinism) does claim to be just such a theory, while he sees many philosophical and practical (a lot of mathematical) problems with that theory and even though we are not at the end of the tunnel, he does claim it is a dead end.
Even if we do not take the road he proposes and even if all the other challenges surrounding evolution can be resolved, I'm still having trouble getting my head around NS, no matter how hard I try. It's basically to simple a concept to grasp for my too confused mind perhaps.
Natural selection
- 06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM
937 Views
selection for suitability
- 06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM
592 Views
Thanks for your responce 
- 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
693 Views
- 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
693 Views
I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it:
- 06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM
641 Views
Just a question
- 06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM
636 Views
Yes it can
- 06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM
524 Views
But how?
- 06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM
716 Views
Re: Just a question
- 06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM
722 Views
I'm not sure I understand you
- 06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM
612 Views
All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies.
- 06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM
638 Views
Then it is still a tautology
- 06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM
652 Views
You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations.
- 06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM
744 Views
Maybe...
- 07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM
602 Views
I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions.
- 09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM
688 Views
we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment
- 09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM
752 Views
As I understand it
- 06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM
576 Views
Better...
- 06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM
572 Views
Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"?
- 06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM
705 Views
yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM*
- 09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM
272 Views
No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway.
- 09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM
631 Views
Hmmm... there's some truth to that
- 06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM
649 Views
The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify...
- 06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM
684 Views
The questions go deeper
- 06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM
680 Views
Re: The questions go deeper
- 06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM
653 Views
I think I know why you don't understand my question.
- 06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM
685 Views
How many equation's has Moraine screwed up? 
*NM*
- 06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
284 Views
*NM*
- 06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
284 Views
100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool *NM*
- 06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM
304 Views
*NM*
- 06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM
304 Views
Re: Natural selection
- 07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM
660 Views
Thanks a lot
- 07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM
795 Views
2 things
- 07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM
583 Views
Re: 2 things
- 07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM
790 Views
Re: 2 things
- 07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM
601 Views
My best guess
- 07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM
618 Views
Re: My best guess
- 07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM
569 Views
Re: My best guess
- 07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM
715 Views