The problem in addressing this kind of argument is that scientists
(especially astronomers, physicists and gelogists) are used to dealing with
large numbers that are incomprehensible to most people. The argument about
random changes to watches sounds reasonable, just as the idea that a room
full of monkeys would never replicate Shakespeare's writings makes sense.
But what about billions of watches with a generation time of several days or
months over biollions of years? All kinds of strange permutations could
occur!
Although unsuccessful "natural experiments" are hard to document since they
tend to go extinct, the fossil record still contains many examples of
interesting evolutionary dead ends. The pre-cambrian creatures in the
Burgess Shale are amazing, so totally unlike the ones that survived. Some of
these dead ends are still with us, as an appendix or coccyx.
Of course directed evolution would get us where we are much faster, and we
wouldn't have to deal with so many powers of ten. But it isn't necessary.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Harvey" <mharv...@shaw.ca>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gallup poll on evolution
When I studied genetics I learned that natural mutations were largely
random. The creationists' scorn of improving a watch by a random change is
strong. I would like to see studies showing how environmental parameters
can direct chromosomal changes so that they are not random and that
adaptation will occur and makes sense. Without such demonstration, we are
all asked to "believe" evolution.
I don't work in this field and may have missed such reports but I have not
seen them.
--
Michael Harvey
Victoria, BC
