[Heartlander]

So you would be shocked(!!!) after years of participating on these threads, to hear that biologists do not posit any particular direction to evolution.

I’m sorry; did you miss all of my replies?

You would be shocked to hear that specified complexity makes no sense to a biologist because biologists do not theorise that specifications precede selection. Ummm… Have you read anything I posted?

But you apparently think selection just eleminates individuals at random. (yes or no)

I answered this question many times now… You have now resorted to asking the question in the form of preadolescent love letter. Now I must check a box?

[js1138]

Sorry if you are too busy. I have not been too busy to answer your posts, but I can understand your position.

[js1138]

You have now resorted to asking the question in the form of preadolescent love letter. Now I must check a box?

I ask questions because, as I read through these threads, month after month, I don't see them answered. There are certain specific questions that are key to the misunderstanding of evolution. The failure to respond to them seems to me to be wrapped up in a mischaracterization of evolution.

1. The first question is, why are ID proponents shocked to hear that biologists do not posit any particular direction to evolution?
2. The second question is, why do ID proponents calculate probabilities based on specified complexity? This makes no sense to a biologist because biologists do not theorise that specifications precede selection. Evolution does not seek a specified goal.
3. The third question is based on Heartlander's post, but applies to many ID proponents. Do you think selection just eliminates individuals at random? If not, why is selection characterized as accidental or random?