Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (639)	3/1/2002 8:12:44 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Mutations are incremental; most are either neutral or actually harmful; many are not even passed on. Thus, it is very rare to have an evolutionarily significant mutation. Somehow, they manage to add up to things like complexity and diversity, and even greater intelligence and freedom from the limitations of a particular environment. The idea that it occurs randomly is ludicrous. It is not the kind of "order" created by randomness...... It is only ludicrous to those unable to comprehend the time frame involved. All of recorded human history is but the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, and that is something that many - particularly those who feel small if they don't view the planet solely as a vehicle for our little species - have a hard time grasping. The kind of order that exists in the universe, and especially in the biosphere, depends upon more than juxtaposition. It depends on the creation of mechanisms that must be more or less precisely constructed to work, and that are frequently interdependent with other mechanisms, to produce a whole. When you say "it depends on the creation..." you assume your conclusion before adequately demonstrating it, which of course you realize is not a good thing. Available evidence and common sense suggest that systems that don't work or don't fit do not last. They suggest that those that do work and do fit do last. So we look around and we see things that work and things that fit, and instead of assuming that we are looking at the stuff that worked and thus lasted, some of us assume a purpose. Is this assumption a reasonable deduction or is it an expression of an emotional desire for purpose?