> I haven't said anything about design. You are making assumptions. Of course I am, just like you assume "materialism" on my part. I have trouble believing tha

> I haven't said anything about design. You are making assumptions. Of course I am, just like you assume "materialism" on my part. I have trouble believing that you're not an ID proponent, even though you're not upfront about it. Otherwise, why bring up books by people with a clear ID agenda? I'm honestly not sure what your goal is here, anyway. You rarely address any questions that I ask. Making assumptions is all I can do. > I said Darwinism appears to be completely useless when it comes to practical application, and has been replaced by other mechanisms that are identified in the biological data. You actually called Darwinism "quackery" and said that it is "dead". This is the least strong version of your position so far. I don't disagree that Darwinism, in the sense that it describes the origin of species, has no direct practical applications. Nobody is in the business of simulating entire ecosystems for thousands or even millions of years. Using that fact as some sort of criticism of the theory itself seems rather hamfisted. > Regarding GAs, the conservation of information applies to how much information we can expect from a single random sample. If we can sample from the entire space of possible solutions, then there is a chance of sampling the optimal solution. Fair enough, but GAs are awful for finding the optimal solution. However, nature doesn't require the optimal solution. It just looks for the next best thing, over and over. GAs tend to converge to some level of fitness and stay there. In fact, it's likely that a random algorithm outperforms those GAs that can get stuck in local maxima. Again, this has no bearing on nature. Nature is fine with local maxima.