From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:43:42 GMT

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.
    
>>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....
>
>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.
>
>GMS
How does this make the reality of the genetical wonders more likely?


Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa