|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Random chance
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This Creationism related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
| ||||
Malaria example[edit]
I think this has it backwards - Behe's "complaint" is that malaria hasn't evolved a defense, which he claims evolution claims it would. We have some big-ass side-by-side on here somewhere that I think includes what he says about this. ħuman
15:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Behe:_The_Edge_of_Evolution,_Interview. What is the claim in this article based on? ħuman 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I know what Behe claims. But what the book points out is that in the "competition" between human-designed treatments for malaria and the evolution of the malaria parasite, the malaria parasite has an excellent record of evolving to "defeat" everything that we can design. That makes the score N to 0 in favor of "random" over design (real design of anti-malarial medicines, done by humans). And then (just to add a bit in favor of the efficacy of "random chance" - if evolution is "random chance") the book points out that the evolution of sickle-cell in humans has been successful (thus far) against the evolution of the malaria parasite. No one claims that the sickle-cell trait was designed. Everyone admits that the drugs were designed. I am using this example, as I said, not in the same way that Behe was using it. And I am not using it to argue "evolution vs. design". Behe admits evolution (many creationists allow for "micro"evolution) in this case. What I am using it as is an example of the adequacy (actually, I go further and say "superiority", I think with some justification) of "random chance", as compared with "intelligent design". I admit enjoying the irony of using an example of Behe's in a way that he obviously didn't intend for it to be used. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, well, it might need to written more clearly? Also a few headers would go a long way to guide the reader through this article's structure, but I couldn't really think of any or where to put them. ħuman 20:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll take a while to go over it. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! ħuman 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! ħuman
- Agreed. I'll take a while to go over it. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, well, it might need to written more clearly? Also a few headers would go a long way to guide the reader through this article's structure, but I couldn't really think of any or where to put them. ħuman
- I know what Behe claims. But what the book points out is that in the "competition" between human-designed treatments for malaria and the evolution of the malaria parasite, the malaria parasite has an excellent record of evolving to "defeat" everything that we can design. That makes the score N to 0 in favor of "random" over design (real design of anti-malarial medicines, done by humans). And then (just to add a bit in favor of the efficacy of "random chance" - if evolution is "random chance") the book points out that the evolution of sickle-cell in humans has been successful (thus far) against the evolution of the malaria parasite. No one claims that the sickle-cell trait was designed. Everyone admits that the drugs were designed. I am using this example, as I said, not in the same way that Behe was using it. And I am not using it to argue "evolution vs. design". Behe admits evolution (many creationists allow for "micro"evolution) in this case. What I am using it as is an example of the adequacy (actually, I go further and say "superiority", I think with some justification) of "random chance", as compared with "intelligent design". I admit enjoying the irony of using an example of Behe's in a way that he obviously didn't intend for it to be used. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)