natural selection seems largely consistent with how other physical laws operate (and therefore we can model genetic evolution by using physical processes such as random walks, brownian motion, etc).
This is not a bad assumption.
But, by the same token, there's no reason to think that evolution will produce the same outcome everytime. Even if you have selection forces on a randomly moving particle the path and therefore outcome, will not be the same every time.
Is this guy's paper pretty much universally refuted by LWers?
[link]
Thoughts on this?
Conway Morris is a big hitter in the scientific establishment. He is, however, a theist, and has "argued against materialism" according to wikipedia. But what are his arguments? Alas the press piece doesn't say. Kudos to anyone who finds the conference and posts the arguments.
“It is difficult to imagine evolution in alien planets operating in any manner other than Darwinian,"
Is this just an instance of a slightly woo scientist-theist failing to take into account that nature might be more imaginative than him?