> I usually ignore your replies as being inane and irrelevant to serious discussion.

First of all I never ignore anyone since to me the word "ignore" is always associated with the word "ignorant" or one who ignores!

> This must ve one of your most stupid (and insulting) comments.

I am sorry, but I did not mean to insult you! I just find it ironic...

> As I and others have told you countless times-- the modern synthesis (and Darwin's
> original conception) has two aspects 1) variation which comes about through random
> mutations, random combinations of gametes, etc and 2) natural selection which, depending
> on the environment (written large) at the time, will favor the reproductive success of
> particular individuals.

I am sorry, but 'natural selection' is still not very well defined by your statement! Since the evidence shows us that the dominant genes usually have the favor, it is then very clear that natural selection has a purpose. So, your description above stills does not show the structure and order of things and seems (at least to me) that it, therefore, favors randomness!

> This over time produces evolution. Now, you continued harping on "randomness" as the
> sole mechanism involved either reflects so low a level of inteligence thant you cannot
> grasp the concept or a willful fixation on misrepresenting for rethorical purposes.

I am sorry again, but I fully grasp the processes. The dominant force always wins...
Either case, it seems to me that 'intellgence' was not even a factor in your equation, but now you proceed to talk about it!

Obviously I hit a core with you when I made my comment about the irony of it all, so I am not very surprised at all regarding the "reaction" that I am getting from you...

> Second, one of the things that make us humans is precisely that we do try combat the
> ruthless process of natural selection.

So, if you think that I am 'ruthless", then maybe I am more in tune with Nature! Besides, how can you combat "Nature" and expect to win when Nature has been around forever and ever and humans have not!? Don't you think that the "odds" are really stacked against you?

> This is why humans try to heal the sick and aid the poor and powerless. Your ignorance
> is revealed even in your example--

So, are you saying that other animals and/or other life forms do not care for their sick, poor and powerless? Also, if humans do indeed try to heal, etc, as you suggest, then how come there is still so much sickness and poverty all over the world? Also and once again, I do not "ignore" anyone, so I am not exactly sure where my "ignorance" would be coming from?

> a more appropriate example is the fact that we are preventing the elimination of
> hemophiliac genes and other genetic disease producing genes from the humangen pool by
> keeping peoiple withthese genes alive long enough to reproduce. Are you saying that
> Davel and I are less than human because we know about and defend the modern synthesis
> theory of evolution? I also know how an atomic bomb works. Does this mean that I
> advocate nuclear war?

No Bernard, I never said and/or even suggested that! I just find it ironic, that is all!!!

You both think that life evolves without a "purpose" and/or "reason" and then from your posts, you both desperately try to intervene and interfere to try to make and/or create a purpose and/or reason for life and existence! To me, this is ironic and definitely fascinating...

As a student of the human mind, I do wonder about these things.

+wirelessguru1