Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,04:29)|
|CH responds: A niche does not cause an adaptation. Adaptations occur via unguided biological variation, such as by mutations. They can then be selected for and become one step in a series of evolutionary changes. Because the biological variation is unguided, there is no target. And since the design space is large and a large number of designs and species are possible, the variation is not likely to repeat. This is why evolutionists are surprised by impressive similarities. Then they explain them as due to similar niches.|
The bolded part shows how many IDC arguments that use "information theory" arguments make mistakes with RM+NS+Time (+other factors. Don't want to go Portuguese on this one).
The first assumption that RM is "random and unguided" does not mean that NS is "random and unguided". As deadman_932 states...
|At any rate, Mr. Hunter...on this planet, organisms encounter a non-biological reality in the form of oh, ---- physics, chemistry, hydrodynamics, aerodynamics etc., --- which constrain and at the same time, create "optima" that CAN affect the trajectory of organisms and the shared inherited characteristics of said organisms ( like oh, pentadactyly and the fact that...oh, ...mammals .have SKIN), that have arisen , sometimes in similar ways.|
The "design space" may be large BUT the space itself is overlaid with an environment "field" that may influence the "direction" of selected mutations. Let me rephrase that...
The "design space" is not neutral to the selected mutations.
Mr. Hunter: Since your argument REQUIRES a neutral "design space", how does your argument hold up if the "design space" is not truly neutral to selection?