Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 23:13 (6085 days ago) @ Kyuuketsuki

"whilst evolution has randomness as a means of generating mutations it is not a theory of chance ... that is only one part of the theory. 
> 
> To quote Richard Dawkins, "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work." - Quoting Dawkins doesn't help me understand how Darwinism is not a passive theory: chance mutations, that's what 'randomness' means, and then a chance to see if natural selection will select you. I know it is all supposed to be purposeless, which means 'chance' to me. - Darwin was working in a time of great ignorance, compared to now, when we see and barely understand the very complex machinery of a single cell. My belief is if Darwin could have lived 'til now he would have repudiated his own theory as presented.