[StJacques]

". . . Think logically or philosophically about evolution. Each stage must be directed by something that supercedes it. To just have random mutation without some selecting criteria to direct it, then you get nothing. . . ."

Actually, you may be more scientific than you realize. Now please don't ask me to do a web search for a link on this, but I remember watching an educational program on television in which an Evolutionary Biologist discussed the possibility that, based upon application of the Law of Entropy to evolution, it could be argued that some mutations were not random at all and were instead directed to maximize energy resources within a given ecological system. He used examples of several types of grasses, and I forget which ones, that he claimed evolved from a common ancestor which he named, and that the distinct ways in which they evolved suggested that they were attempting to make better use of sunlight and that the various mutations of color, width of the leaves, height of the plant, etc. could all be explained as an attempt to maximize use of the sun's rays in their distinct geographical regions. He believed this suggested that the mutations were not random at all but were instead oriented towards the end of not leaving energy resources, i.e. sunlight, unused. And he pointed out further that maximizing the use of sunlight was not necessary for survival, but rather a means of "filling a void" in becoming a more efficient organism in the way it related to its environment.

This is one of the reasons why I want to see if there is anything to the theory of "Intelligent Design." It may be supported by theories now existing among Evolutionary Biologists that question Natural Selction as the engine of evolutionary change.

[Ichneumon]

I remember watching an educational program on television in which an Evolutionary Biologist discussed the possibility that, based upon application of the Law of Entropy to evolution, it could be argued that some mutations were not random at all and were instead directed to maximize energy resources within a given ecological system. He used examples of several types of grasses, and I forget which ones, that he claimed evolved from a common ancestor which he named, and that the distinct ways in which they evolved suggested that they were attempting to make better use of sunlight and that the various mutations of color, width of the leaves, height of the plant, etc. could all be explained as an attempt to maximize use of the sun's rays in their distinct geographical regions. He believed this suggested that the mutations were not random at all but were instead oriented towards the end of not leaving energy resources, i.e. sunlight, unused.

Since it sounds as if he was looking at the modern species, I don't see how in the world he could have determined whether the genetic differences between them were due to "directed mutation", as he hypothesizes, or "directed *selection*" (a redundancy -- selection is, by definition, directed) of undirected mutations.

It seems that there would be no way to differentiate between the two processes, looking only at the end results.