Mitt Romney, Theistic Evolutionist

During my 7 years or so as a Mormon I encountered more YEC* than "theistic-evolution." Of course, that might have to do with a tendency to keep such beliefs "on the down low."

Selection always increases the relative frequency of those genotypes that are most conducive to survival and reproduction.

— Steve Reuland

I agree with you about the die role; assuming the dice aren't loaded, each number is equally likely to come up, and is hence the outcome is random. In biology however, each genotype is not equally likely to survive.

— Steve Reuland

Richard wrote:

"But is there any equivalent law of selection? I don't think there is. I think that any accurate statements which can be made about selection will be probabilistic. They may deal in averages or tendencies, but those will be probabilistic averages or tendencies."

I agree that this is usually the case. I think that selection is a process not a force and that the outcome is not always possible to predict with absolute certainty.

However, as Steve has pointed out, if selection is the only thing that is operating, then the outcome is often very predictable. Indeed, there are many examples where this is the case, such as recessive lethals and strong heterozygote advantage. In many cases the perfectly predictable outcome will eventually be fixation or stable equilibrtium unless other factors are operating.

I do not know if "deterministic" is the opposite of "random" or if "predictable" is equivalent to "deterministic". I do know that "random" doesn't come close to describing the role of selection in evolution.

PaulC:

Reproduction, and of course the molecular process of Replication that underlies it, is kind of funny in a way. It has enough fidelity that we don't see huge errors every time replication occurs, but it is faulty enough that evolution can occur. That is one of the more interesting things in molecular biology, although not the area I like to work on myself. I lean a little more towards the neutralist camp rather than the selectionist camp, although both acknowledge that beneficial mutations are the rarest of all.

The problem is that the general population really doesn't know very much about statistics (see the armchair statisticians whose only contribution to the critique of a study is correlation does not equal causation!) or the terms that are used. Instead they have the folk-definitions of things like random, probability, chance, etc and these folk-definitions are frequently very different from what they really mean in their proper usage and context. Most people, even some in the sciences who don't work on evolution or a related field (like population genetics), don't really understand is the nature of underlying stochastic processes and how they work in terms of evolution and how the interplay between these stochastic processes coupled with selective forces is a truly powerful mechanism for the production of variation in nature. It is absolutely awe inspiring in my opinion. Then again I chose to work with protein evolution for my masters work and if you want to delve into the nitty gritty there you have to have an appreciation for stochastic processes/events, probability distributions, and the functioning of forces on the molecular level.

Creationist: "... RANDOM ..."

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

Henry

Robert O'Brien wrote:

During my 7 years or so as a Mormon I encountered more YEC* than "theistic-evolution." Of course, that might have to do with a tendency to keep such beliefs "on the down low."

Indeed, I've met a few people who were either YECs or other flavors of special creationists (with less emphasis on the "YE" part) who attended what we would think of as liberal Protestant churches. And, of course, some of our -- er, favorite "design proponentsists" are Roman Catholics. None of these churches adhere to doctrines of Biblical literalism, and good science is taught in their affiliated schools. But how many rank-and-file church members could explain their own church doctrines as taught to prospective members of the clergy in seminaries -- or even as they are taught to undergraduates at, say, a liberal Methodist or Catholic university?

Lest this sound condescending: How many of us could explain and critique, in detail, the economic platform of the political party for which we voted in the last election?

Well said, Dan.

I think I may have been reading too much into Steve's and Dave's comments. Perhaps their thinking is simply something like this: selection is not equiprobable; therefore it's not random (in the folk sense); deterministic is the opposite of random; therefore selection is deterministic.

Dan wrote:

"Most people, even some in the sciences who don't work on evolution or a related field (like population genetics), don't really understand is the nature of underlying stochastic processes and how they work in terms of evolution and how the interplay between these stochastic processes coupled with selective forces is a truly powerful mechanism for the production of variation in nature. It is absolutely awe inspiring in my opinion."

Yes, well said. I agree with Richard.

The key point is that outspoken individuals making the case that faith and evolution are not at odds is key to ending the religious opposition to the teaching of evolution. For that reason I view this as a good thing.

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/

James MacGrath: I agree. While I don't personally agree with the Theistic Evolution most people who hold it tend to take (which occasionally comes pretty close to ID in all but name) at least it is an attempt by the faithful to reconcile their faith with the world around them. They let reason, logic, and scientific evidence speak for itself and simply adapt their faith accordingly. I have no beef with that and commend them for not being suckered in by the fundamentalist viewpoint that is hijacking their religious beliefs.

Interesting Anti-atheist. Perhaps you should share the results of your healthy imagination on a creative writing site. I suspect the people there will be a lot more enthused about them than people on a science site are going to be.

I think when the article says evolution is "utterly random" he's trying to say that humans (and any other organisms) are by no means necessary or predictable results of the evolutionary process. As Gould says, if you rerun the experiment a zillion times, you will never generate the same organism twice. The process of evolution is much too dependent on contingencies over which selection has no influence. Selection can only operate on variation made available to it, and that variation is inherently unpredictable and random.

In other words, we simply circle back to intent. Theistic evolutionists essentially believe that this variation isn't random; it's being *deliberately introduced* by their god, operating behind the scenes. Evolution is their god's tool to produce humans, and mutations were deliberately and intentionally manipulated for that purpose. Non-theistic people, at least as I read it, regard humans (and all other creatures) as a purely contingent accidental result of a process with a large random component.

I don't have such a problem with the article, but I'd have written about an undirected and unpredictable process, rather than a random process.

guys english is not my native tongue
but the word determinism is common in european languages (homonym from greek is aetiocracy) and in science vocabulary for ages.

crudely
determinism = The (specific) cause has the (specific) effect
causality = A (every) cause has An effect and vice versa

determinism is causal,causality is not obligatory to be deterministic

a analogy for determinism is a 1-1 function while causality is not obligatory 1-1.

qm is non-deterministic and it is inherently random though not fully since it is causal.
chaos theory is deterministic but its randomness is not inherent like qm's.
determinism is not an antonym of randomness

full-total randomness (whatever that is) means non causal,but nothing as such is believed to exist in the physical world since all physical laws are causal.
(at the present of course but it's kind of difficult to imagine how could total randomness exist even in a future non-temporal theory since for change to happen
there has to be some kind of abstract variable -more abstract "time"- with respect to which ,change takes place)

Torbjörn you're a physicist I believe,did you use different than standard terminology
for biologists to understand?

Someone's talking smack about you guys.

Selection is causal. The cause is a suboptimal phenotype produced by a particular genotype. So for example, with strong heterozygote advantage an equilibrium allele frequency will be achieved in a predictable number of generations and will be globally stable. If the selection coefficients are known, one can predict the number of generations required to achieve equilibrium and the allele frequencies at equilibrium quite precisely. This is the sense in which selection is deterministic.

However, I think Flint is absolutely correct. The real issue here is the source of genetic variation. Various posters on this blog have claimed that the variation is not random but is produced by some intelligence with foresight and planning for some predetermined goal. I think that it is important to point out the experimental evidence that shows that mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism. It think it is important to point out that there is no known natural mechanism by which favorable variation can be produced preferentially. I think that it is important to demand evidence when claims of intelligence and foresight are invoked. In the absence of such evidence no one should feel constrained by such a belief.

David Stanton:

Of course those equations from population genetics only work on an ideal population. Normally there isn't a way for us to work out all of the necessary information to do that, and of course selective pressures can change over the generations. But yea in an ideal situation with all of the data the pop gen equations would give us some pretty incredible predictive power. Of course over the intervening time from when the prediction is made and when the result should occur chances are the selective pressures have shifted and the prediction may have become meaningless.

Someone's talking smack about you guys.

— wÒÓ†

Torbjörn you're a physicist I believe,did you use different than standard terminology for biologists to understand?

Dan,

Of course you are absolutely right. In that sense selection is not deterministic in that the final outcome cannot always be predicted with certainty in the real world. That is why there is always an element of chance in evolution, as you pointed out earlier.

However, if only selection is being considered, if nothing else is affecting allele frequencies, if the population size is relatively constant and mating is relatively random, if the selection coefficients don't change significantly, then accurate predictions can be made. Other things may occur, such as drift, etc. but selection, in and of itself, is still a deterministic process. This scenario may not be realistic, especially given the number of generations required for equilibrium in some cases, but this is essentially how modeling works. The equations only give meaningful results if the assumptions are met. In many cases they do not leave much doubt as to the eventual outcome if the assumptions are met.

Once again, we could argue over the meaning of "deterministic" all day. But in the end, selection is one of the driving forces of evolution and it is not "random" by any meaningful definition. By this I do not mean to imply that there is anything "intelligent" or "purposeful" in the process in the sense of moving towards a predetermined goal. If the environment changes the selection coefficients may change and the outcome may change. That doesn't make it random, even if it is sometimes difficult to make predictions.

Actually, I'm fine with everything Romney said (as quoted in this post). I'm not a theist, but at least what he said poses no threat to real science education (evidence, prediction, peer-review, falsifiable, etc).

Individuals are free to believe what they wish - but science should be taught using scientific principles.

Romney still isn't likely to get my vote, however (other, off-topic issues).

Utterly random? When are people going to learn that evolution contains an extremely powerful deterministic process known as selection? I'm afraid the author got his idea about what evolution is from the IDists.

Anti-Atheists -

Good work using the same name for two posts in a row (I think).

As a non-atheist, I condemn the bigotry it implies against my atheist fellow citizens, and deny your irrational delusion that "atheists" are somehow plotting against you. I conjecture that tormenting religious doubts of your own may motivate you.

BUT - does your latest post mean that you do NOT have a problem with evolution? That you accept "theistic evolution"? If so, one more reason to take your comments to a site that deal with atheism directly.

Now, on Intelligent Design, I asked the McCain camp this question: Understanding that teaching Intelligent Design is a local issue, does Senator McCain believe teaching Intelligent Design in science class alongside Evolution is a good idea? Here's the campaign's response: "Senator McCain believes evolution is supported by science, but that we shouldn't be afraid to expose students to other theories."

On the other hand if it is irrelevant I must practice my english more since I don't get what it means and whence it comes.:-)

I also wish people would stop mentioning using philosophy classes as an "intellectual dumping ground". (Not to mention that "theistic evolution" is a very strange position, but that's another story...)

"Talking smack" is an urban American phrase to describe the insults exchanged by opposing players during a sports event. Usually it's used in the context of basketball. So when I say "Someone is talking smack about you guys" I mean to say that Mr. Davison says you're all a bunch of nincompoops or something.

If I were a creationist, I would be taking great comfort from this thread, in which all you "Darwinists" seem to be proving that you don't know what "random" means to or in "Darwinian" theory and thus cannot, with honest logic or honest science, disprove or even counter my creationist use of the word.

And don't try to cover your confusion by substituting the word "stochastic." My Merriam-Webster "New COLLEGIATE Dictionary" (emphasis mine) defines stochastic as "1. RANDOM...." (Emphasis theirs, and signifying the essential synonymy of stochastic and random.) (So that you don't accuse me of definition-mining, the other meaning of "stochastic" for Merriam-Webster's college students is "2. Involving chance or probability: PROBABABILISTIC..." the emphasis again theirs and again signifying essential synonymy with a word that means that certainty is impossible.)

Certainty, of course, is not a problem to me, a creationist!

So now, as both a creationist and a college student, I'm concluding, from reading this thread and my standard dictionary, that you "Darwinists" haven't a clue as to what your "theory" means, or predicts, or can predict. Indeed, in previous posts, it was asserted that there is no "law" of selection. And another post (#175276) finds it requisite to deny Darwin's sexual selection ("if...mating is relatively random...") as one of a series of conditions necessary so that "then [only then] accurate predictions can be made."

Yup. As a creationist, dictionary-reading college student, I predict that my beliefs are safe: I'll graduate, go through medical school, and become a prominent neurosurgeon during the Romney administration. And you'll find me here arguing against the relevance of "Darwinism" to neurosurgery, and against life's "random" origins, while you "Darwinists" are still arguing the "pathetic details" of what the word means.

PoxyHowzes wrote:

"And another post (#175276) finds it requisite to deny Darwin's sexual selection ("if...mating is relatively random...") as one of a series of conditions necessary so that "then [only then] accurate predictions can be made."

Yup. As a creationist, dictionary-reading college student, I predict that my beliefs are safe"

How could you possibly interpret my comment as denying sexual selection? To clarify, if sexual selection is operating in opposition to natural selection, then it will be impossible to make accurate predictions if sexual selection is ignored. There is a vast literature on balancing selection forces. Of course all of the words are in the dictionary, just not in the right order.

As for your prediction, I absolutely agree. Your beliefs are undoubtedly safe.

wÒÓ†,
Thanks for the link to http://oneblogaday.com/web/2007/04/15/pharyngula
My personal favorite was
"wÒÓ† Says:

I'd really hoped to engage you in a meaningul dialog, Mr. Davison, but it appears that you're dangerously close to being just another crank with a dialup connection.

With regard to this "I love it so" business... you may not be aware that in some south Tibetan dialects there's a phrase that sounds to the Western ear like "ah laffet show."

It can be broadly translated as "My vagina hurts."

Ah laffet so. Priceless. :) :) :)

Dear "PoxyHowzes"

Issues with pre-existing English vocabulary, and debating the various choices of words to explain the evidence collected does not demonstrate problems with the theory. Language is representative. Any complex idea must be expressed in many ways, including using models, analogies and examples. Economics, political science, biology, particle physics all use these methods to commmunicate ideas whose complexities exceed the language they have. Indeed, that is how new words come to be, as it becomes clear that existing vocabulary cannot adequately represent the ideas being explained.

Before you reject evolutionary theory on the basis of dictionary definitions, perhaps you need to examine the evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence is VAST and complicated; people spend their entire lives studying the topic. A little humility is appropriate in commenting about a subject in which you haven't logged enough mileage.

David Stanton wrote in Comment #175225: I think it is important to point out that there is no known natural mechanism by which favorable variation can be produced preferentially.

David Stanton:I agree, and I don't think we were disagreeing anyway. Of course Drift is always at work, while selection may or may not be, but the pop gen equations all factor in drift and then tack on selection as needed as a scaling factor.

It's interesting to look at some of the beneficial alleles that haven't been fixed in any population and probably won't even when selected for because the forces of drift are just too strong when the initial allele frequency is low. Pop Gen isn't my field of course but I find it very interesting.

David Stanton:

Regardless of whether "Alphabetical Order" is the right organizing algorithm for a dictionary, it certainly doesn't help when your attempt "to clarify" seems to say just the opposite of what you originally said.

In #175276, you listed four assumptions, requisites, axioms, whatever as requirements for making accurate predictions. I read the following: If only selection is considered,...if mating is relatively random,...then accurate predictions can be made as meaning that sexual selection cannot be considered if one wants accuracy in one's predictions. (I did not take this as an overall denial by you of sexual selection.)

Now you come along in #175276 with a "clarification" that says that accurate predictions are impossible unless sexual selection is taken into account. I don't see how any order of words in the dictionary could help me resolve this discrepancy.

I have no doubt that there is vast literature. My doubt (as a putative creationist) is that in a thread now more than 60 posts long the "Darwinists" can express to a reasonably intelligent person (a dictionary-reading college student) why the Creationist application of the term "random" is wrong, and what the "correct" use of that word might be for a "Darwinist."

It hasn't happened yet.

PoxyHowzes,

Apparently I have been too obtuse. Please allow me to clarify further.

Your argument appears to go something like this: if we are unaware of the jet stream it is impossible to make accurate predictions about the weather, therefore God-did-it. My point was that if we do not take account of the jet stream then our predictions will not be accurate. That doesn't mean that meteorology is worthless. It means that real world systems are complex and difficult to model accurately.

In my post I clearly stated that I was referring to selection and selection only in the absence of any other complicating factors. I clearly stated that other factors could exist and that they must be taken into account in order to make accurate predictions. It is indeed possible to make accurate predictions if the effects of natural selection and sexual selection are considered together. As Dan pointed out, it is also necessary to account for genetic drift as well. This simply requires more than one equation. However, even if no equation ever gave a perfect result, the default position of God-did-it would still be just as inappropriate as a scientific explanation as it was in meterology before the jet stream was discovered.

The word "random" in regards to evolution is properly used to refer to the processes generating genetic variation such as mutations which occur randomly with respect to the needs of the organism. It is not appropriate to assign a metaphysical meaning to the term and apply it to the process of selection.

As far as the dictionary goes, my point was that if you rely on the dictioaary to resolve issues in biology you will fail miserably. As KL pointed out, you need to spend hours every day reading the literature and doing experiments for yourself in order to understand modern evolutionary theory. The answers to these questions are not in the dictionary. Is that clear enough now?

By the way, I'm sure everyone noticed that you started out "If I were a creationist . . . " moved on to "I a creationist" then later became a "putative creationist". Having a little trouble making up our mind are we?

My doubt (as a putative creationist) is that in a thread now more than 60 posts long the "Darwinists" can express to a reasonably intelligent person (a dictionary-reading college student) why the Creationist application of the term "random" is wrong, and what the "correct" use of that word might be for a "Darwinist."

— PoxyHowzes

Poxy,
To provide a concrete example. When rolling a pair of (honest)dice the result is random. Yet no matter how many, many times I roll a pair of dice in a game of craps I will never, ever pull a straight flush from them. It is simply impossible. This despite the fact that the dice are completely random. Likewise, no matter how random the environmental and internal impacts on DNA replication in oogenesis and spermatogenesis and no matter how random the choice of which sperm combines with which egg and no matter how random the impacts are to development, no child will ever be born that has a whale flipper in the place of a leg or a sparrow's wing in the place of an arm or kiwi fruit in place of eyes or carrots for hair. No sea turtle will ever give birth to a racoon. Being random does not mean that anything is possible. Only that, within the constraints of possibility, from all that is possible, what actually comes to pass is unpredictable (and uncorrelated with environmental selection pressures).

Sincerely,
Paul

(Improvements to or demonstrations of imprecision in my argument are solicited.)

and uncorrelated with environmental selection pressures

Dan Gaston: Thank you. Your succinct argument/explanation gives me much to go on as a supposed creationist/college student with dictionary. I may not understand your distinctions fully, but you give me confidence that there is something out there to understand. Perhaps I can guide my college career in such a way as to avoid becoming a neurosurgeon who believes that evolution is bunk. Even if I want to spend my life arguing with "evilutinists" like you, I know that we lack a common definition of a common word. To prepare myself for such argumentation, you've shown me that I need a broader/different understanding of how you think. At the very least, you've alerted me that I may need to consult texts other than the Christian bible in order to engage you in discussion.

Dave Stanton: Thank you, too. Actually, in my posts here in this thread, I never (had to) get to the "Goddidit" conclusion or default. I (the supposed creationist) was merely pointing out that previous posters were all too eager to denigrate/ belittle/ dismiss my use of the word "random" without telling me why your side thinks I was/am wrong.

{OT: I think that the "jet-stream" analogy is significantly flawed (as an analogy). Folks who didn't think "goddidit" were making weather forecasts well before they knew about the jet stream. And simple knowledge that there is such a thing as a jet stream doesn't help meteorology or weather forecasts until we can model the jet stream with some degree of accuracy better than the accuracy of [weather forecasts without the jet stream model/component]. So far as I know, the thing(s) Darwin called "variation" cannot yet be modeled well enough to predict the next variation(s).}

In case it is not clear, I have been making a forensic argument (you could look it up in the dictionary!). "If I were" is a subjective statement in the American language, meaning, roughly, "I'm not, but I'm playing the role." "I a creationist" is intended to remind you that I'm still playing the role, something that better punctuation might help me convey better. "Putative Creationist" means (I'm looking at the dictionary again!) "supposed creationist," again meaning that you should answer me as if I really were one, whether I am or not. One might say that I was/am playing "Devil's Advocate."

Paul Flocken You've gone way too far and way too OT, IMO. I, the role-playing creationist, would argue something like: life on earth is observed to be too complex to have arisen from random events. To someone who did not raise his hand when asked "who does not believe in evolution?" the creationist's use of the word "random" is one issue among other issues. (E.g., "observed.")

Your mere assertion that there cannot ever be a vegetarian Medusa (carrots for hair) is, IMO of no greater weight or value than my (the putative creationist's) mere assertion that my ancestors were not monkeys. Neither statement adduces any observational or experimental evidence, and so both are vacuous. All vacua are equal, by definition.

Only experts pay attention to the details. Romney probably defined "random" in the sense Flint intended (with no intent or purpose), and didn't give too much thought beyond that. The vast majority of people on both sides of the evolution divide don't think about the theory very often, and their comments reflect their indifference.

If I were a creationist, I would be taking great comfort from this thread, in which all you "Darwinists" seem to be proving that you don't know what "random" means to or in "Darwinian" theory and thus cannot, with honest logic or honest science, disprove or even counter my creationist use of the word. And don't try to cover your confusion by substituting the word "stochastic." My Merriam-Webster "New COLLEGIATE Dictionary" (emphasis mine) defines stochastic as "1. RANDOM...." (Emphasis theirs, and signifying the essential synonymy of stochastic and random.) (So that you don't accuse me of definition-mining, the other meaning of "stochastic" for Merriam-Webster's college students is "2. Involving chance or probability: PROBABABILISTIC..." the emphasis again theirs and again signifying essential synonymy with a word that means that certainty is impossible.) Certainty, of course, is not a problem to me, a creationist!So now, as both a creationist and a college student, I'm concluding, from reading this thread and my standard dictionary, that you "Darwinists" haven't a clue as to what your "theory" means, or predicts, or can predict. Indeed, in previous posts, it was asserted that there is no "law" of selection. And another post (#175276) finds it requisite to deny Darwin's sexual selection ("if...mating is relatively random...") as one of a series of conditions necessary so that "then [only then] accurate predictions can be made." Yup. As a creationist, dictionary-reading college student, I predict that my beliefs are safe: I'll graduate, go through medical school, and become a prominent neurosurgeon during the Romney administration. And you'll find me here arguing against the relevance of "Darwinism" to neurosurgery, and against life's "random" origins, while you "Darwinists" are still arguing the "pathetic details" of what the word means.

— PoxyHowzes

wÒÓ†
I bow before your perseverance and endurance!
honestly
I tried and tried ang finally read till #651 (without commenting)
but now I feel, I'll really be needing a period of detoxication,cleansing,catharsis,total absence from
BS of whatever kind for the next hmmm 10 years.
I guess John A. Davison was a regular here before I started to pass by.(thank God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
next to,compared to John A. Davison realpc,carol clouser and some others are intellectual Giants.
I'm starting to appreciate them. :-)
joking of course

PoxyHowzes sorry for being harsh and crude but
you made no sense
and anyway having just finished reading
this
I really can't stand nonsense and I surely can't be civil...

Real-world processes are neither absolutely random nor absolutely deterministic. Rather, they are more or less chaotic, and this often depends on the scale at which the process is observed.

Torbjörn you're a physicist I believe,did you use different than standard terminology for biologists to understand?

Poxyhouses said: So far as I know, the thing(s) Darwin called "variation" cannot yet be modeled well enough to predict the next variation(s).}

life on earth is observed to be too complex to have arisen from random events.

Your mere assertion that there cannot ever be a vegetarian Medusa (carrots for hair) is, IMO of no greater weight or value than my (the putative creationist's) mere assertion that my ancestors were not monkeys. Neither statement adduces any observational or experimental evidence, and so both are vacuous.

Comment #175359 Posted by PoxyHowzes on May 13, 2007 9:10 PM (e) If I were a creationist, I would be taking great comfort from this thread, in which all you "Darwinists" seem to be proving that you don't know what "random" means to or in "Darwinian" theory and thus cannot, with honest logic or honest science, disprove or even counter my creationist use of the word.

And don't try to cover your confusion by substituting the word "stochastic." My Merriam-Webster "New COLLEGIATE Dictionary" (emphasis mine) defines stochastic as "1. RANDOM...." (Emphasis theirs, and signifying the essential synonymy of stochastic and random.) (So that you don't accuse me of definition-mining, the other meaning of "stochastic" for Merriam-Webster's college students is "2. Involving chance or probability: PROBABABILISTIC..." the emphasis again theirs and again signifying essential synonymy with a word that means that certainty is impossible.) Certainty, of course, is not a problem to me, a creationist!

So now, as both a creationist and a college student, I'm concluding, from reading this thread and my standard dictionary, that you "Darwinists" haven't a clue as to what your "theory" means, or predicts, or can predict. Indeed, in previous posts, it was asserted that there is no "law" of selection. And another post (#175276) finds it requisite to deny Darwin's sexual selection ("if...mating is relatively random...") as one of a series of conditions necessary so that "then [only then] accurate predictions can be made."

Yup. As a creationist, dictionary-reading college student, I predict that my beliefs are safe: I'll graduate, go through medical school, and become a prominent neurosurgeon during the Romney administration. And you'll find me here arguing against the relevance of "Darwinism" to neurosurgery, and against life's "random" origins, while you "Darwinists" are still arguing the "pathetic details" of what the word means.

You might find what you're looking for here...
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way [selective breeding], but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs.

Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.

Real-world processes are neither absolutely random nor absolutely deterministic. Rather, they are more or less chaotic, and this often depends on the scale at which the process is observed.

— Richard Wein

The later isn't true. Chaos has a specific technical definition in rapidly diverging states in phase space, often (or always) as a consequence of recursion. There is no classic chaos in pure QM for example, since it has linear evolving states.

— Torbjörn Larsson

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't.

The sperm are created in the male on a daily basis. This short time between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary theory.

Torbjörn you're a physicist

but I don't think any macroscopic processes are completely linear in reality, because they are affected by external influences such as the gravity of external bodies (however insignificant in magnitude).

What I was trying to say is that no real-world process is absolutely 100% predictable.

Richard Wein --- The laws of thermodynamics (correctly stated) appear to be certain. In no other part of physics can the same be said.

The laws of biological evolution (correctly stated) appear to be essentially certain...

I will definitely borrow the functional description (1-1, et cetera). :-)

— Torbjörn Larsson

"The sperm are created in the male on a daily basis. This short time between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary theory."

Tennis balls are produced in factories on a daily basis. The short time between the production of a tennis ball and a tennis tournament precludes the possibility that tennis balls can be used in tennis tournaments.

Well, it makes as much sense as the quote anyway.

Panda's are Cool!!!!!