Re: "scientific" position on philosophical questions
Jason Bode (jason_bode@hotmail.com)
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:16:01 PDT>>Ami Chopine:
>>Natural selection has been observed. Mutation has been observed. >>Have
>>we been able to show it was completely random?
>
>Susan B
>at the moment mutations *appear* to be random, in the sense that they >are
>caused by gene replication errors. It seems entirely reasonable >to me that
>certain kinds of environmental stresses might cause the >number of errors
>to increase and therefore increase the probability >that one of the errors
>is beneficial. Someone recently posted on this >list a url for some
>research that seems to indicate that that is the >case. If it turns out to
>be true, that still leaves a random >*element* in mutation.
As to appearances, since they are not valid scientific evidence when design
is considered, why should appearances and reasonability be valid in this
case? Double standard?
And the appearance of an increase of errors under stressful environmental
conditions can be interpreted as well designed. No proof either way of
course. Basically I'm wondering how the increase in errors under those
situations shows randomness.
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com