Re: Human design and natural "design"
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:02:34 -0400 (EDT)
Tim Tyler tim@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> I tend to define evolution as
> that which produces changes in the genetic make-up of populations
> over time.
JE:-
Tim's definition is the same as the standard gene centric Neo Darwinian
definition:
Any genetic change in a deme.
Because this definition does not differentiate between random and non
random genetic change it reduces evolutionary theory to just a non
refutable proposition where variation cannot be distinguished from
evolution. This means that this definition reduces evolutionary theory
to the epistemological status of yet another belief, on a par with
creationism or witchcraft. The only possible way that this amazing error
can be corrected is to define evolution as:
Any NON RANDOM genetic change in a deme.
Only this definition is compatible with Darwinism.
Please note that all of statistics exists just to be able to make the
*BASIC* and critical distinction between random and non random events.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Article: Whew! Your DNA Isn't Your Destiny
- Next by Date: Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)
- Previous by thread: Re: Human design and natural "design"
- Next by thread: Re: Human design and natural "design"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
