From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:21:39 GMT

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.

>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.

>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.

>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
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa