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
979 Views
selection for suitability
- 06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM
631 Views
Thanks for your responce 
- 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
746 Views
- 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
746 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
676 Views
Just a question
- 06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM
679 Views
Yes it can
- 06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM
555 Views
But how?
- 06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM
749 Views
Re: Just a question
- 06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM
767 Views
I'm not sure I understand you
- 06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM
655 Views
All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies.
- 06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM
681 Views
Then it is still a tautology
- 06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM
692 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
787 Views
Maybe...
- 07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM
639 Views
I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions.
- 09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM
728 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
791 Views
As I understand it
- 06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM
621 Views
Better...
- 06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM
606 Views
Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"?
- 06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM
742 Views
yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM*
- 09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM
292 Views
No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway.
- 09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM
671 Views
Hmmm... there's some truth to that
- 06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM
690 Views
The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify...
- 06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM
728 Views
The questions go deeper
- 06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM
724 Views
Re: The questions go deeper
- 06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM
699 Views
I think I know why you don't understand my question.
- 06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM
731 Views
How many equation's has Moraine screwed up? 
*NM*
- 06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
302 Views
*NM*
- 06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
302 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
322 Views
*NM*
- 06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM
322 Views
Re: Natural selection
- 07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM
698 Views
Thanks a lot
- 07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM
839 Views
2 things
- 07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM
618 Views
Re: 2 things
- 07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM
827 Views
Re: 2 things
- 07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM
643 Views
My best guess
- 07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM
676 Views
Re: My best guess
- 07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM
615 Views
Re: My best guess
- 07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM
763 Views