Quote:
|
Actually, Penrose was rather vigilant so as to avoid any unnecessary blasphemy regarding the current Darwinian dogma that decrees, as you say, that “natural selection is a NON-random forceâ€â€”note that he indicated that things organize themselves better than they ought just on the basis of “blind-chance evolution†AND “natural selection."
|
This paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense . . . for example, how does Penrose know "how things ought to organize themselves" on the basis of mutation and natural selection? That just sounds like a an academic's way of saying "I can't possibly believe that natural selection, lacking any foresight, produced biological complexity."
Quote:
|
[Penrose's] “blind-chance evolution†is roughly synonymous with “random mutation,†but he still seemingly pays the required homage to “natural selection.â€
|
"Evolution" (in any phrase) and "random mutation" aren't remotely synonymous . . . any phrase with the word "evolution" in it, twisted though Penrose's may be, should refer to the proceses of change in content of heritable information between generations: selection, drift, migration, recombination, and mutation. Random mutation is a part of the evolutionary process, not a synonym for it.