[Buddha-l] life force vis a vis Xianity & Hinduism

[curt]

Evolution only depends on the existence of variations within
populations of organisms belonging to the same species. The
existence of those variations is necessary - otherwise evolution
would never occur. "Random mutations" are just one way for
variations to come about. Another way that variations come
about is by way of "transposons" (sometimes referred to as
"jumping genes"). And another mechanism has recently been
proposed by Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan - what they call
the "acquisition" of genetic material by organisms. Transposons
are discussed in a nice wikipedia article on Barbara McClintock,
and links therefrom (she received a Nobel Prize in 1983 for
discovering transposons):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintock
And the acquisition of genetic material is described in Lynn
Margulis and Dorian Sagan's book "Acquiring Genomes":
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465043925/qid=1124738966/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-5613842-3896616?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I think its important to separate the question of "random mutations"
from the overall issue of evolution. It is the "random mutations" that
get the Kirishitans worked up - but this just highlights their ignorance -
or sometimes their willfull misrepresentation of biology. That genetic
variations exist in populations is an undeniable fact - and that these
variations lead to differences in "fitness" is also undeniable. These facts
are completely independent of explaining how the variations come
about - and it is becoming clear that there are mutliple sources of these
variations. Margulis and Sagan claim that mainstream "neo-Darwinists"
"wildly exaggerate" the role of random mutations in evolution - but this
is completely within the realm of science and has nothing to do with
promoting the idea that an old guy with a white beard pulling levers
behind a curtain is behind it all.

- Curt


Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>The theory of random mutation is
>capable of explaining everything we know of with a bare minimum of
>assumptions. Nothing at all is gained by adding the notion of
>intelligence to the notion of mutation, especially since the theory of
>intelligent design leaves unanswered the huge question of where the
>intelligence came from that allegedly guides creation. It raises more
>questions than it answers. So it is an inferior position.
>
>  
>