TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

If you are not modeling (at least some limited facet of) what happens in nature, your model cannot inform one way or the other about what nature can or cannot do.Your model simply has no bearing on reality because reality is NOT searching far any specific goal.That you can come up with an algorithm which has trouble finding a goal has no relationship whatsoever with what goes on in nature.Edited by jacortina, : No reason given.

You think that says anything important? By far the majority of organisms do NOT have fruit fly wings. So?So far, you've done nothing but, is effect, declare the endpoint of a drunkard's walk to be the target destination of a second drunkard's walk and using the improbability of that outcome to claim the first one was too improbable to occur.If evolution is not 'trying' to to produce those wings, if there is not a target (and here's a hint: EVOLUTION HAS NO TARGET!!!!), there is no target to miss. So saying the likelihood of 'missing' is near unity has no meaning whatsoever.

Can you quote the sentence ... the VERY NEXT SENTENCE ... that follows that passage?I can.

quote:

---

Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved.

---

So, the context of the passage clearly states that Eldridge believes that the fossil record supports Evolution.You use YOUR quote, leaving that part out, in order to forward YOUR agenda of trying to show that scientists themselves doubt Evolution.That is the very definition of quote-mining and it is thoroughly dishonest.

This is every bit as absurd (and as indicative of a serious lack of understanding) as saying that unsupported matter has 'target' of the lowest height and the aiming device is gravity or that the 'target' of raindrops is to coalesce into a puddle with the pothole being the aiming device.

What, no apology for the blatantly dishonest quote-mine?Frankly, without that, you've shown yourself as disinterested in actual information exchange.

It was ABSOLUTELY dishonest.Your post of the quote-mine mine was to SPECIFICALLY point out an 'evolutionist' (a 'highly credentialed' one) who didn't think the fossil record supported evolution.You only accomplished this by a dishonest quote and leaving off a clear statement that he felt the fossil record supports evolution.It isn't even close or the slightest bit ambiguous.You lack even the modicum of integrity to acknowledge getting caught in a blatant act of dishonesty.And that makes you completely worthless for any form of communication.