"The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe

Hi Kaichos Man,While I would have broken it down differently, staying within the context you've already defined it's important to note that the target of evolution is not "none" but "survival to reproduce."--Percy

Evolution has no specific goal. Evolution is never trying to produce an eye or a lung. Selection keeps whatever allows life to survive to reproduce, and whatever innovations prevent an organism from reproducing will disappear when that organism dies. Evolution's target is adaptation to the environment. That's why when an environment changes, the organisms change with it.--Percy

I suggest you ask John Baumgardner, creationist developer of the Terra computer model of the flood, if he agrees with this characterization.If what you said were actually true then there would be no point in building computer models of the weather, spacecraft flight paths or anything else.I myself develop software for modeling computer designs so that hardware designers at companies like Intel and IBM can verify that their designs work before they go through the expensive step of actually casting their design into silicon. If all they did was simply "tweaked" their models until they got the result they wanted instead of learning about the problems in their design then they'd never get a successful design and there would be no point to modelling.Your modus operandi is to cast about thoughtless criticisms right and left. Might I suggest a bit of fact checking or study before putting fingers in gear.--Percy

Hi Kaichos Man,You misunderstood Drosphilla's reply. Your argument is that neutral mutations, since they produce no phenotypic change, cannot be selected. We all agree with you, including Drosophilla. He was talking about mutations that *do* produce phenotypic change and that *are* acted upon by natural selection, explaining that small changes gradually accumulate into larger changes. This includes the gradual accumulation of neutral mutations where at some point one additional mutation does cause phenotypic change.As has been explained, you seem to be misunderstanding Kimura as saying that so few mutations produce phenotypic change that they cannot be a factor in evolution, and that's not what Kimura said. The Kimura quote you're so fond of talks only of change at the molecular level, not at the phenotypic level. Modifying existing information creates new information. If we label the original information "a", and we modify it to become "b", then "b" is new information. Depending upon the specific circumstances "b" might represent more or less information than "a", but it is definitely new and different information that did not exist before.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add clarification to first paragraph.

The "design problems" of organisms are found in evolutionary modelling programs at each generation when selection is performed. Just as in the natural world where the least well-adapted organisms either fail to reproduce or at least reproduce less successfully, in an evolutionary modelling program the "organisms" that are least well-adapted to the simulated "environment" produce fewer or no "offspring." I guess I have the same reaction to this as Dr Adequate: "Good grief, are you still being wrong about that?" I see that Modulous has explained this yet again, but this has been explained to you so many times in so many different ways by so many different people that I'm not sure there's any point in attempting yet more explanations.--Percy