From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:06:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.234342.25334@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.162139.13780@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.225536.1653@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>>>In article <01GT702KZYRMADDW20@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>>>>>Message-ID: <1993Jan5.211313.23465@julian.uwo.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have yet to see how evolutionists account for the fact that
>>>>>their theory presuposes a genetical miracle, among other things.
>>[....]
>>>>Sorry, but your arguments are too uninformed to debate.  You should
>>>>read some of the introductory discussions on this topic in
>>>>sci.skeptic.  There are solid answers to every single point you've
>>>>raised above.
>>
>>I have to agree here.  
>>>
>>>I have read the sci.skeptic FAQ, and the arguments presented there are
>>>not in the least degree convincing. It response to the argument above,
>>>they state:
>>>ER> Consider the freezing water in the example.  The wonderful
>>>ER> arrangement in crystals arises from the random movement of water
>>>ER> molecules.  But ice crystals do not require divine intervention
>>>ER> as an explanation, and neither does the evolution of life.
>>>ER> 
>>>ER> Also, consider a casino.  An honest casino makes a profit from
>>>ER> roulette wheels.  The result of a spin of a particular wheel is
>>>ER> purely random, but casinos make very predictable profits.  So in
>>>ER> evolutionary theory, even though the occurance of a particular
>>>ER> mutation is random, the overall effect of improved adaptation
>>>ER> over time is not.
>>>ER>
>>>
>>>This argument is simply nonsense. The complexity of a water crystal
>>>does not even come close to the complexity of the human body.
>>
>>Complexity it relative, and this simple example is one of which the
>>human body is merely an extrapolation.
>>
>>>To claim that it has evolved by mistakes, is extremely impropable.
>>
>>Probability is relative as well.  That statement requires quite a leap
>>of faith.  All complex things are made of simple subunits.
>>
>They may be made of simple subunits, but what does that have to do with
>the subject at hand? 
>  
>>>Of course there are some favorable mutations, but to claim that errors
>>>can occur, one after another that do not kill the animal, are favorable
>>
>>The error in the above logic is that you are referring to a single
>>individual.  Evolution happens to a species.
>>
>So what? It does not make much difference, for if 100 favorable mutations
>occur in 100 different species, that does not add to the system as a whole.
>    

Because your argument was the claim that actions of change on a water
crystal would not present a relevant model for actions of change on
the human body due the complexity of the latter.  The fact that each
subunit of lesser complexity changing could result in the complex
entity changing disproves your claim.  Clearer?

>>>and lead to the creation of something as complex as, for example, the
>>>human brain is humorous. I am just as likely to believe that the next
>>
>>There are many humorous things in this thread.
>Yes...
>>
>>>stone I throw will not return to earth, but fly to Mars.
>>>Maybe it was not this answer that you were refering to....

Don't get this.  Some of your sentence must have been lost somewhere.

>>
>>If you were capable of hurling an enormous number of stones into the
>>air with a distribution of velocities whose average was known but whose
>>individual velocities were not, you might expect one to.  Again, your
>>error is in equating the population with the individual.  Further,
>>the fact that life is a system whose very nature requires homeostasis
>>and works against entropy gives evidence that it struggles against
>>"normal" behavior by its very nature.  Beings that don't have this
>>ability to behave contrary to "normal" physical behavior are described
>>by the term "dead".  This is not a mystery.
>>
>How does this make the reality of the genetical wonders more likely?

An individual is one person.  A population has bigger numbers of people.
More > less.  100 is a small number compared to millions.  Distribution
means that all the individuals in a population are not equal.  That means
that some stones in the example will have more velocity than others.
This is very simple.

GMS

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa