Music

Björn Lindberg d95-bli.no at spam.nada.kth.se
Thu Jun 20 08:53:27 PDT 2002


Steve Bougerolle wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:52:20 +0200
> Björn Lindberg <d95-bli.no at spam.nada.kth.se> wrote:
> 
> > Of course, but the evolutionary theory is the currently most probable
> > one. Also, I can create a model for evolution of gene sequences. That
> > model will work well with simulated data, and give certain results.
> > That same model can also work well for real data suggesting that it
> > might be a good model. But it is all about models.
> 
> My only beef with that is summarizing current theory as "evolution".
> That hides theoretical problems under a big blanket.  What is the
> current most favoured selection mechanism, and (if you don't mind
> sparing a minute to tell us about your work) how will this help us check
> its likelihood?

> 
> > Let me also add that biologists have observed mutations, and other
> > genetic behavior like duplications of gene material etc, so it is not
> > just speculation at all. Evolution have been observed in smaller, more
> > fast evolving organisms, like bacteria.
> 
> Nobody (at least nobody reasonable) disputes that.  But you've just
> proven micro-evolution.  That still doesn't explain how single-celled
> organisms evolve to become people, and then there is still the even
> bigger debate of how we get to single-celled organisms from inorganic
> matter.  Exactly how many mutations would it take to change Homo Erectus
> into Homo Sapiens?  What is the probability of that happening per unit
> time, and of the mutant successfully spreading his mutations to create a
> new species?  Repeat the same argument for other critical stages: what
> are the chances of life becoming animal and plant forms?  Of a
> single-celled organism developing?
> 
> The genetic tracing stuff is interesting (to me) for all sorts of other
> reasons but I don't see that it does much of anything at all to address
> the really interesting=contentious issues in evolutionary theory.  I DO
> see, though, that some of those are basically mathematical and therefore
> open to interesting computational/simulation work.

Here is a good link refuting the common creationist arguments. Based on
your comments I would think that you will find items 7, 8 & 11
interesting:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2


Björn
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list