Barry Lynn Firingline debate on random selection

[backspace]

http://bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm

Barry Lynn said:
Well, with a simple sentence you could: random selections which make a
species -- a species more likely to survive are beneficial. That's a
very simple idea and it explains why in fact some species survive and
others do not.

Was he talking about random natural selection or non-random(directed)
natural selection?

Note that no where on Wikipedia is non-random defined. It is used
though in the volitional directed sense in many articles such as
clustering illusion.

[backspace]

BL: Well, with a simple sentence you could: random selections which

make a species -- a species more likely to survive are beneficial.
That's a very simple idea and it explains why in fact some species
survive and others do not.

ES: I mean, adaptive differential reproduction is the definition of
natural selection. Why is this a problem? Why is this a problem?

DB: Que sera sera. What will happen, will happen. That could not be
the locus in which you repose your trust. What will happen, will
happen. Big deal.

ES: No, no, no, that's not -- No, adaptive differential reproduction
is not "what will happen, will happen." Let me ask another question.

MK: Explain -- why don't you explain what that term means.

ES: Well, I don't know, it may just -- it may not necessarily
enlighten our listeners actually because it is technical. But that's
the whole point.

DB: It's not technical. It's just means what survives, survives. We
know that.

Note what Scott said: ... Well, I don't know ....

This has been my point the last few years around here: nobody knows
what we are talking about. The terms ns,drs aren't defined in the
current context.

DRS is a term coined by Tyndall and used in his context of the phrase
SoF by which he meant the small incremental differential accumulation
of new attributes as creatures engage in Darwin's, Matthew's 'natural
means of competitive selection, survival,preservation or cultivation.

Wallace used NS as the metaphor for SoF, this doesn't mean NS means
SoF . It means he used a term as a metaphor for a phrase in his
knowledge context. Scott must formulate a full sentence and then
explain why she insists on using Wallace's NS as a metaphor for such.

The reason phlogiston theory isn't used as the metaphor for quantum
theory are because quantum theorists aren't trying to make their
theories undefined .

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PZ_Myers pointed out is that ''... we
are no longer dealing with Darwin's theory......''. Then why do we
keep on insisting on using his terminology?

Thus we need ask ourselves: are evolutionists not perhaps insane?