New scientist said:
''Varki thinks that early humans were confronted with a massive epidemic of bacterial infection. The two bacteria he studied are particularly dangerous to newborn babies, who often die after being infected. That could explain why the human population fell so precipitously, and why we got rid of the Siglec genes that made us so vulnerable.''
Note that they say--in the new-scientist of all places--that: ''why we got rid of the Siglec genes...''. Clearly 'we' did NOT do that, yet they word it that way, I guess from a human perspective. But how then should it be worded? Luck? These genes that were ''got rid of'' is answered how? If not luck, then what is the answer?
It also says:
''Consider any kind of creature that lives underwater and has to chase its prey, for instance. Random mutations will result in some offspring having variety of shapes. Those with shapes that allow them to move faster with less energy are much more like to survive and reproduce than those whose shapes slow them down. The result is that all fast-swimming creatures evolve a streamlined shape, as we see in animals as diverse as squid, sharks and dolphins. It might look like the result of design, but it shows instead the power of natural selection, which can be thought of as a rigorous real-world testing process for evaluating the effect of different mutations.''
One point is ''The result is that all fast-swimming creatures evolve a streamlined shape''. Yet there is no answer as to 'why' they would do this. I mean, why not a non streamlined shape. Again it appears to be random luck.
Another point: ''It might look like the result of design, but it shows instead the power of natural selection, which can be thought of as a rigorous real-world testing process for evaluating the effect of different mutations''. A 'testing process'? for 'evaluating'? This seems to be in line with the human condition of seeing 'reason' and 'intelligence' for everything. Perhaps it should have been better worded:
''It might look like the result of design, but it shows instead the power of luck and chance, which can be thought of as 'random events in the real-world', a testing process which has no intelligence and therefore can 'test' nothing, yet evaluating the effect of different mutations somehow''
What is wrong with that as a statement? After all, if there is no intelligence involved, then this is what happened. Period. Even NS which is supposed to be non random, comes from a random process for the simple reason that there is no intelligence involved.
It goes on to say:
''More controversially, a few biologists think some microbes may have evolved mechanisms for boosting the mutation rate in specific genes when they are struggling to cope with a changing environment, or for "storing up" variation for when it is needed. Even if such mechanisms do exist, however, all they do is produce random variation. Natural selection - the testing process - is what moves evolution in particular directions.''
My thoughts were that it might be possible for DNA to be there before it is needed and therefore like the craftsman with his tools--of which he takes many, not knowing which he will need. This of course requires aforethought, and that implies intelligence, or sheer luck. Now it seems that there are some biologists who think that way. As for saying that it is random variation, that would be only if one thought that there was no purpose in evolution in the first place, which is not suggested by the biologists who think 'storing up' info is a possibility.
Also on same site:
''"The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747," astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe told a court in Arkansas in 1981, according a report in New Scientist (21 January 1982, p 140). His colleague Fred Hoyle made the tornado version of this claim famous - proving that even very clever people can utterly misunderstand evolution.''
I am not familiar with the origin of the quote or whether out of context, but it appears that the origin of ''life'' is the point not what happened when life appeared.
I have seen this phenomena many times over from scientists who explain things as if there is intelligence and then ignore it. Why do they do this?