[Tribune7]

GREAT LINK!THANKS

The evolution of living creatures appears to require an essential ingredient, a specific form of organization. Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest; it is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light. Whether gradualists or saltationists, Darwinians have too simple a conception of biology, rather like a locksmith improbably convinced that his handful of keys will open any lock. Darwinians, for example, tend to think of the gene rather as if it were the expression of a simple command: do this, get that done, drop that side chain. Walter Gehring's work on the regulatory genes controlling the development of the insect eye reflects this conception. The relevant genes may well function this way, but the story on this level is surely incomplete, and Darwinian theory is not apt to fill in the pieces.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome! I'm glad the articles were helpful to you!

Marcel-Paul Schützenberger refers to Dawkins' appeal to mathematics as a fatal attraction primarily because mathematicians are epistemological zealots.

Fatal attraction pretty much sums up what I have found everywhere I have looked for evolution analysis in mathematics and its cousins, physics and information theory: von Neumann, Yockey, Schützenberger, Patten, Chaitin, Rocha, t'Hooft, Penrose, Wolfram...

That's why I concluded early on that modern evolutionists were embracing the randomness pillar to their own peril, i.e. they should be more malleable to avoid disaster. After reading Schützenberger, I'm thinking the common descent pillar may be endangered as well.