"How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random"

From rgb's OP A thought occurs to me: if you were to face the question that has apparently puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin then;a) how would you answer this question to your own satisfaction (if a believer in the ToE)?b) why do you think your answer wouldn't satisfy experts in the field? Or to put it another way; what do you know that they apparently didn't up to now?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Wow, either you are a different person now posting under iano's account, or you haven't been paying any attention whatsoever to what people are saying here. Evolution isn't completely random, so your question is based on a false premise.'Nuff said.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Hi Iano, Does it really puzzle biologists? All of them? Most of them? Or just Raj Chakrabati and co.? It's a nonsense question. Evolution is not random, so the question, being founded on a false principle, is irrelevant.Individual mutations are indeed random but natural selection is not. The physical and chemical processes within which evolution must occur are very definitely not random. Evolution, viewed as a whole, is very far from random.Unguided and random are not synonyms. You have not demonstrated that experts in the field are unsatisfied.Here's what one expert, PZ Myers, had to say about the bolded section of the quote;

quote:

---

That first sentence is not even wrong. Darwin answered the question of how complexity can arise, so no, we haven't been puzzled by that general question; evolution is not completely random, so that part is a complete non sequitur; randomness easily generates lots of complexity, so even if we accept his premise, it invalidates his question; and how does he reconcile his assertion of "completely random" with his use of the simple metaphor of the "blind watchmaker", which implies non-randomness? That's a sentence that contradicts itself multiple times in paradoxical ways.

---

Sounds good to me. Does that help clarify matters?Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

An biological mechamism that is self regulating; how strange.There is not really much anyone can add to the above:Evolution is not random.Surely, you know this already?

Who the hell is rgb? What does it stand for?Anyway, not all of evolution is random. Iano, let me clue you on something. When scientists talk like this, they're not necessarily talking about the technical aspects of it. In other words, you could see it as half joking.I interpret that quote to mean he's saying we've found one more aspect of evolution that isn't random.A few years ago, I read an article in a scientific journal about an experiment that went wrong. A group of paleontology students built a model of a flying dino from the jurassic period. The model had motors attached so the thing was suppose to fly under it's own battery power. After they launched it, something went wrong with the motor and the thing crashed. During a press conference, the professor remarked that scientists have always wondered how this creature flew because of its design or why it went extinct, but now both of those questions seemed to have been answered.I'm willing to bet you're one of those who would use the professor's one quote to somehow argue that scientists doubt the creature ever existed or that the creature ever flew at all. You impress me by your denseliness. Somehow, you've focused into a single quote and interpret that to mean the experts don't know anything about the subject.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : damn it, keep finding grammar and spelling mistakes

I don't know what they're smoking over at Princeton, but it must be pretty potent if they've forgotten that selection is not random.It may be as Taz surmised that they're just engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Obviously any chemistry that acted to correct unfavorable protein imbalances would be strongly selected for.--Percy

rgb is an inactive member who apparently hasn't posted since 2006.But I've now found rbp and his "News and Information" topic Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective. The ultimate source, as previously listed there, is this.Why a new topic was started is a mystery. I'm going to close it down. Please go to the source topic.Adminnemooseus

---