Two sides of the irreducible complexity argument: dhw Pt1 (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, September 24, 2009, 16:55 (5538 days ago) @ xeno6696


> 
> dhw:
> Before I continue let me just say that the past... however many months I've been at this forum have been an absolute blast! It is such a different experience than previous web-locales... Never once have I seen a flame war erupt... ad-hominems are "zero," and there is an atmosphere of respect that most other places I've been to just lack. Excellent work amigo!!-Over the two years I've been around as an invited member, our number has whittled down. But generally there has been great courtesy. One problem is the site is English. It takes pages of Google in America to turn up, so Americansdon't seem to find it. We need to push Google here. When my book came out I pushed and I was #1 on google for a long time.-
> There is a drastic difference in perspective between us here... I do not consider natural selection to be "active." For the most part, selection works like a butcher's knife, (or a recession, as it were.) The gristle and fat gets cut down continuously leaving behind only those parts that are truly necessary. But changes in environmental conditions are random. 
 
We don't define 'active' the same way. Mutations, except the epigenetic ones are at random, passive. Environment is at random,passive, but in a sense acts actively by cutting out the weaker ones if they don't adapt fast enough (as we have discused).Butchering, your metaphor, is an active profession. Natural selection is the only totally active part of Darwin's theoretical process.