Home » Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design » Die to evolve

Die to evolve

Matt Ridley, author of the book “Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters” (2006 Harper Perennial) is known to be a brilliant propagandist of Darwin. Perhaps also for this reason the Wall Street Journal gives him the opportunity to periodically write articles on this topic.

In one of these, Ridley candidly writes:

“Biological evolution, too, is anti-fragile. The death of unfit individuals is what causes a species to adapt and improve.

Some could wrongly interpret here the “improvement” in a minor, reductive sense. In truth, Ridley, like all evolutionists, when speaks of “improvement” of species dreams its major all-comprehensive sense, nothing less than biological macroevolution of all species starting from the “primordial soup”, in other words, the “molecules-to-man” series of evolution’s miracles.

“The death of unfit individuals”, the “anti-fragile” task, is exactly Darwin’s natural selection. In his genomics book, where he narrates “the story of human evolution from our ape ancestor”, Ridley cites some examples of “improvement” by natural selection: “natural selection designed [sic] the pieces of our organism”, “natural selection provided a stellar navigation system for the migrant birds”, “this ability [free will] is something that natural selection put inside us”.

The cited bold statement by Ridley offers us the occasion for analyzing the particular relation that evolutionists establish between their supposed evolution and death. For them, it is a causal relation, in short, like Ridley states, “death causes evolution”.

Let’s see what happens when a similar “logic” is applied to other fields. Evolution in car industry: “scrapping of cars causes the creation of all worldwide car production”. Evolution in education: “student’s exam failure causes the knowledge of the professors”. Given the Wall Street Journal is implied, what about this “evolution in economy”: “bankrupt of industries causes the economic growth of a nation”. I could continue with examples from different fields.

To us IDers the Darwinian death-causes-evolution logic smells of non-sequitur, or, worse, of logical contradiction. How can a destructive force cause construction? Destruction does not construct. But the “logic” of evolutionists is different from ours.

First, it is likely evolutionists would say in defence of Ridley: “Matt forgets to mention the second actor in the process: random genetic mutations provide the input materials for natural selection”.

Unfortunately doing so doesn’t help them. In fact in the vast majority of cases random mutations are harmful and produce damage to the biological organization. Only in few cases mutations are neutral. So finally Darwinism clearly appears what it really is, the conceptual concatenation of two negative destructive factors: damage and death.

Isn’t it paradoxical that a theory that pretends to explain life and its astonishing organization uses damage-and-death as creation “engine”? It is absurd for us IDers/creationists, nevertheless it has an important place in the perverted worldview of evolutionists. Design and life are the positive paradigms in the ID/creationism perspective. Evolutionism, which is the inverse of that, somehow must use the inverse paradigms: destructive randomness is the opposite of design, and death is the opposite of life. So, in a sense, Darwinian evolution would be better named “devolution”, or even “destructionism”.

At the very end, any one holds on to the logic he likes. We IDers like the one according to which any real organization arises from intelligent design. All we see around us shows evidence of that. Evolutionists hold on to the believe that any biological organization arises from damage-and-death. Obviously, no evidence whatsoever supports that, but why bother, they are satisfied of their illusion.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

20 Responses to Die to evolve

  1. This does not begin to explain humanity’s reaction to death. We do not idly sit by and watch others die and say, “Well, that person was unfit. Time for some chlorine to be added to the gene pool!”

    Explain to me why parents choose to birth and raise handicapped children when, according to the logic of the OP, they should be aborted as “unfit” for survival.

    Explain to me why societies choose to prolong life by artificial means (ventilators, etc.) instead of simply letting the person go. Why do we as humans have such a visceral reaction to death when it should be a normal part of the evolutionary process?

  2. Darwinists are more directly wedded to death than they realize with merely their notion of the ‘unfit’ dieing off. It is found that even the ‘random’ variations/mutations that Darwinists are dependent on to drive evolution are, instead of ever creating new life, found to be directly associated with the death of all biological life that exists.

    ,,, when computer programmers/engineers want to build a better random number generator for a computer program, then a better source of entropy is required to be found by them in order for them to achieve the increased randomness they desire:

    Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator
    Excerpt: From an information theoretic point of view, the amount of randomness, the entropy that can be generated is equal to the entropy provided by the system. But sometimes, in practical situations, more random numbers are needed than there is entropy available.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....._generator

    And the maximum source for entropy (randomness) in the universe is now known to be black holes,,,

    Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010
    Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated.
    http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe

    Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! – January 2010
    Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....fact-uhoh/

    Yet we find,,

    “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
    Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century

    “Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
    Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

    Thus, Darwinists are found to be postulating that these ‘random’ events of entropy of the universe are creating information when in fact these ‘random’ entropic events are known to be consistently destroying it. The evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.

    Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
    Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”

    I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

    HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
    http://www.hgmd.org/

    The implications?

    Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations:
    why have we not died 100 times over? Kondrashov A.S.
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/.....4/art00167

    John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) – Down, Not Up – 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....L0#t=1040s

    Notes from John Sanford’s preceding video:

    *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
    * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
    *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
    Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
    *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation (now revised down to around 35).

    This following video brings the point personally home to each of us about the effects of genetic entropy and ‘random’ entropy in general on us:

    Ageing Process – 80 years in 40 seconds – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdxYmGro_Y

    Thus, in irony of ironies, it is found that Darwinists have, in fact, everything backwards, in that instead of looking towards the true source of all life, almighty God, as to the cause of all life, instead postulate the source of all decay and death, entropy, as the creator of all life.

    Verse and music:

    1 John 3:14
    We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

    Carrie Underwood – Temporary Home
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LraOiHUltak

  3. Moreover, postulating that life has no real purpose, value, or meaning, as Darwinism does,,

    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
    Richard Dawkins

    ,,, has certainly contributed to ‘the culture of death’ we now live in:

    How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World – Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
    Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
    “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).
    http://www.gnmagazine.org/issu.....-world.htm

    The body count for abortion is now over 50 million in America since it was legalized, by judicial fiat not by public decree, in 1973 (i.e. legislation from the bench):

    Abortion Statistics
    http://www.voiceofrevolution.c.....tatistics/

    “for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
    Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15 (Note the year that this was written was shortly after the German ‘master race’ was defeated in World War II)
    http://www.bearfabrique.org/Ev.....thics.html

    The Eugenic Impulse By Nathaniel Comfort – Nov. 12, 2012
    Excerpt: The ultimate ideal sought,” wrote Harvey Ernest Jordan in 1912, “is a perfect society constituted of perfect individuals.” Jordan, who would later be dean of medicine at the University of Virginia, was speaking to the importance of eugenics in medicine—­a subject that might seem tasteless and obsolete today. Yet nearly a century later, in 2008, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the biomedical research institute on Long Island’s north shore, published a book titled Davenport’s Dream, which shows that eugenic visions persist.
    http://chronicle.com/article/T.....se/135612/

    The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society – Dr. Phil Fernandes – video
    http://www.nwcreation.net/vide.....ciety.html

    Verse and Music:

    John 10:10
    The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

    The Civil Wars – Barton Hollow
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooTyuRd9zSg

  4. lol,
    In fact in the vast majority of cases random mutations are harmful and produce damage to the biological organization. Only in few cases mutations are neutral.

    The “vast majority” of mutations are neutral, otherwise you and you 30 or do new mutations, would probably be dead. Only a very few are beneficial, but for such mutations the carriers are less likely to die without out reproducing than the wild-types so Ridley (who is wrong about many things) is right about this.

    Unless somehere in all that waffle about teachers and economy (the domain from which we get the phrase “creative destruction, btw) you refute this simple observation?

  5. The “vast majority” of mutations are neutral, otherwise you and you 30 or do new mutations, would probably be dead.

    The random mutations are bad. The directed mutations would be neutral and/ or beneficial.

    Just sayin’…

  6. Just sayin’ ID is an untestable proposition that can be skewed to fit with any observation?

  7. Actually, there is a very good ‘common sense’ reason, besides the studies I listed earlier, to believe the vast majority of ‘random’ mutations are slightly deleterious. The slow accumulation of ‘slightly detrimental mutations’ in humans, that is ‘slightly detrimental mutations’ which are far below the power of natural selection to remove from our genomes before they spread throughout a population, is revealed by these following facts:

    “When first cousins marry, their children have a reduction of life expectancy of nearly 10 years. Why is this? It is because inbreeding exposes the genetic mistakes within the genome (slightly detrimental recessive mutations) that have not yet had time to “come to the surface”. Inbreeding is like a sneak preview, or foreshadowing, of where we are going to be genetically as a whole as a species in the future. The reduced life expectancy of inbred children reflects the overall aging of the genome that has accumulated thus far, and reveals the hidden reservoir of genetic damage that have been accumulating in our genomes.”
    Sanford; Genetic Entropy; page 147

    Children of incest – Journal of Pediatrics
    Abstract: Twenty-nine children of brother-sister or father-daughter matings were studied. Twenty-one were ascertained because of the history of incest, eight because of signs or symptoms in the child. In the first group of 21 children, 12 had abnormalities, which were severe in nine (43%). In one of these the disorder was autosomal recessive. All eight of the group referred with signs or symptoms had abnormalities, three from recessive disorders. The high empiric risk for severe problems in the children of such close consanguineous matings should be borne in mind, as most of these infants are relinquished for adoption.
    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S.....8/abstract

    Inbreeding is also a very big problem that must be carefully guarded against in animal husbandry in selecting for desired, inherent, traits. As well inbreeding is also witnessed to be a major problem for some natural populations such as Cheetahs:

    Inbreeding – Pros and cons
    Excerpt: The ultimate result of continued inbreeding is terminal lack of vigor and probable extinction as the gene pool contracts, fertility decreases, abnormalities increase and mortality rates rise.
    http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm

    Further notes:

    John Sanford writes in “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome”: “Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 ‘mutation’ hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word ‘beneficial’ (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed ‘beneficial mutations’ were only beneficial in a very narrow sense–but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes–hence loss of information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation yet I contest the fact that they build meaningful information in the genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome.” (pp. 26-27)
    http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].

    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.

    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.

    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.

    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.

    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.

    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.

    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.

    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.

    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.

    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.

    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.

    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Moreover the ‘neutral’ theory of evolution didn’t ‘naturally flow out of the evidence but was a ad hoc addition to Darwinism to prevent it from being falsified by the mathematics:

    Kimura’s Quandary
    Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in responce to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most ‘evolution’ must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom’s (neo-Darwinism’s) very validity.
    John Sanford PhD. – “Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome” – pg. 161 – 162

    A graph featuring ‘Kimura’s Distribution’ being ‘properly used’ is shown in the following video:

    Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

  8. IDists have said how to test ID.

    Just sayin’…

  9. wd400 you claim that

    ID is an untestable proposition that can be skewed to fit with any observation?

    Yet I know exactly what would falsify ID. One molecular machine arising from purely material processes would falsify ID!

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997

    Actually the falsification criteria is much more strict than that wd400:

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    But since you bring up the subject of falsification wd400, could you tell us the exact mathematical falsification criteria for Darwinism?

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

    Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos
    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.”
    Smith, Wolfgang (1988)
    Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Nobel laureate physicist that you sure won’t read on a Darwin pressure group Web site
    Excerpt: Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! -
    Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)

  10. wd400 #4

    “The “vast majority” of mutations are neutral.”

    When the mutation is neutral it is because the Designer worked hard to increase the reliability and robustness of organisms. Without such extreme design also a single bit error would be deleterious (like in human computer programming).

    When I wrote “in the vast majority of cases random mutations are harmful” I had in mind the above concept.

  11. without such extreme design also a single bit error would be deleterious

    Do you have any evidence for this statement? It seems to go against pretty much everything we know about molecular biology

  12. wd400 #11

    The genetic instructions are digital. But this digital software, differently from our computer software, has more reliability and flexibility because of a series of design choices (redundancy of the genetic code, multifactorial genes, DNA control & repair mechanisms…). Indeed molecular biology shows that.

  13. Well, that, again sounds like a demonstration of just how untestable ID is. You say most mutations are deleterious. You’re informed this is not the case, so you decide the very fact most mutations are neutral is evidence of a designer!

    More to the point, you still haven’t made an argument as to why the fact most mutations with a detectable effect are deleterious makes what ridley said wrong.

  14. wd400 #13

    You are a likeable guy. Untestable ID? You open the “black box”, see countless information processing machineries counterworking the entropy, and you say “untestable ID”. It is obvious that nothing would convince you. Neither I hope to do it. I am accustomed that evolutionists deny any evidence of design a priori. No news.

    I hope, perhaps some day the Designer himself will convince you by means of His power (which, needless to say, is infinitely greater than mine). I don’t strive to write posts at UD in a language that is not my mother language to obtain mundane gratifications. Even, if I get insults it is better. You are young while I am old. When I will be before the Almighty God and He will ask “niwrad, what did you do to defend me and my work against the deniers?”, at least I will can reply “ehm .. ehm .. Lord .. I wrote some posts at UD”.

  15. niwrad you comment

    When I will be before the Almighty God and He will ask “niwrad, what did you do to defend me and my work against the deniers?”, at least I will can reply “ehm .. ehm .. Lord .. I wrote some posts at UD”.

    Given the obstinacy of most atheists it seems rather pointless at times doesn’t it?,

    The Boy and the Starfish
    A man was walking along a deserted beach at sunset. As he walked he could see a young boy in the distance, as he drew nearer he noticed that the boy kept bending down, picking something up and throwing it into the water.
    Time and again he kept hurling things into the ocean.
    As the man approached even closer, he was able to see that the boy was picking up starfish that had been washed up on the beach and, one at a time he was throwing them back into the water.
    The man asked the boy what he was doing, the boy replied,”I am throwing these washed up starfish back into the ocean, or else they will die through lack of oxygen. “But”, said the man, “You can’t possibly save them all, there are thousands on this beach, and this must be happening on hundreds of beaches along the coast. You can’t possibly make a difference.”
    The boy looked down, frowning for a moment; then bent down to pick up another starfish, smiling as he threw it back into the sea. He replied,
    “I made a huge difference to that one!”
    ~Author Unknown~

    By the way niwrad, I personally find you to have some of the best pebbles and shells on the beach!

    I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
    Isaac Newton

    Inspirational poem:

    Ocean Sunset – Inspirational Poem
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4217255/

  16. Ocean Sunset -

    The deep stirring sounds of the ocean surf

    And the breathtaking hues of the setting sun?s sky

    Speaks a tension between time and timeless

    That brings a holiness to mind and eye

    Surely its a spatial dimension that

    We barely perceive but do not yet possess

    An apparent sheen on the near side of infinity

    We are allowed to see but not yet transgress

    The overwhelming beauty of this translucent

    Continuum strips the veil of my shallow ego

    And these moments of spiritual transcendence

    Have been as much immortality as I know

    For I come suddenly upon a awareness

    Of the force of life and love that is shared within me

    And the strange but perfect exhilaration that
    God made both this ocean sunset and me to be

  17. bornagain77, thanks.

    When it will be your turn (I wish you it will be very late……) you will can answer: “Lord, I defended You with Terabytes of top-level contributions to UD”. Your work will be even more repaid because done as an humble commenter.

    born-again, names matter.

  18. Niward, I’m not insulting you (certainly not any more than your post insults so called “darwinists”)

    I’m mainly trying to understand your argument (which is missing) and what any of this post has to do with biology.

  19. I’ll leave the randomness to others, but there remains the problem that “fittest” is ENTIRELY subjective and dependent on the situation. Before the comet hit Earth, dinosaurs were the “most fit” type of large animals. Then, bang! They all died, proving that they were remarkably UN-fit. Neanderthals survived quite well for something like 250,000 years in basically the same habitat as humans, and then simply disappeared. Does this mean that for 249,999 years they were “fit”, and then they woke up one Tuesday to discover they’d been misclassified?

    “Fitness” is a false concept, which actually comes from an Economist who wrote about the same time as Darwin. “Fit” businesses survived “economic downturns”; “unfit” businesses did not. The Economic version of the argument makes a little more sense, but there is still a large chunk of luck and randomness. It will be interesting to see, for example, whether Facebook is a “fit” business 5 years from now.

  20. I’ll leave the randomness to others, but there remains the problem that “fittest” is ENTIRELY subjective and dependent on the situation.

    Half right (fitness is relative to an environment, but not subjective). But, again, I’m not sure why this is relevant?

Leave a Reply