determism in evolution

I have been observing this forum for about a year now and time and time again I have heard creationists complain that they can't believe in evolution because human beings could not have come about by "accident" -- referring to the randomness of mutation. They have decided in their own minds that our form is "ideal" and no-one seems to be able to shake them from that notion. This anthropocentric fallacy is a barrier not only for those who are strict creos but those who accept evolution in general but place human beings as a special creation because they can't make the mental leap.What I would like to explore in this thread is the idea that perhaps even if you start with this human "ideal" assumption it can be shown that no matter what random input could have came from mutation, the result for human evolution would have been almost the same. My intuition tells me that this would be the case for at least for the main features that distinguish us: Bipedalism, large brains, advanced language, and advanced tool use, etc.Obviously one must start this argument by looking at the fact that all of the human advancements provide powerful survival advantages; However, in order to put this "accident" talk to rest it must be shown that it would be improbable for the path of human evolution to take a different course given different random input. The creationist side would have to show that there are innumerable equally competitive adaptations primates could undertake which are qualitatively inferior to the human adaptations. Otherwise, it is not fair to say that there is anything especially "ideal" about us other than our ability to survive.This message has been edited by null, 10-03-2004 07:59 PMThis message has been edited by null, 10-03-2004 09:06 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I would say that the creos' problem is that they somehow refuse to add 2 and 2 together to make 4. They keep saying 2 does not equal to 4. This is, of course, complete BS.Human beings did not result only from random mutation. Human beings resulted from many many millenia of a combination of random mutations, natural selection, and other selective force that are at work to make sure the ones with the best traits for survival survive.I do sometimes wonder why creos keep forgetting about natural selection and other selective forces when they make their argument. It's almost always "randomness cannot blah blah blah..."

I also think that their derogatory attitude towards randomness is badly misplaced. Randomness plays a big role in any design process. If I am working on a difficult project, random things I see on my off time give me ideas of things to try (mutation) then when I get back to work I play around with the idea on the computer or on paper and I either throw it out or incorporate it (selection). I think any sort of reasoning process you can think of involves a great deal of trial and error. Just because the result of a design is awesome doesn't mean the method for arriving at it had to be -- and that's just fine.Also, sleep researchers have determined that the firings of your neurons during your sleep are highly random. Without having gone through this random process in your sleep you will be unable to function and reason while you are awake. If our dreams were static and dry i'm sure we'd be walking around like zombies.What's wrong with randomness?