In the "Re: Evolution of proteins in sequence space" thread,
Bert wrote:
[...]
>Looking backwards, let posit two Models, labeled A and B.
>
>Model A
>The initial conditions were set just right so that the laws of nature
>plus these initial conditions would lead to us.
>
>OR
>
>Model B
>The initial conditions were set appropriately but along the way God
>introduced additional organims and information which lead to us.
>
>Now Howard, the question is, how can be tell the difference between
>Model A and Model B?
[...]
Model-A holds a subset of the mechanisms found in model-B. Depending on
the mechanisms and events unique to "B", it may be possible to detect the
effects of the additional mechanisms. For example, if it literally rained cats
and dogs one day, and we'd never seen such animals before, we may suspect that
Model-A is not a sufficient explanation. There are any number of ways by which
an interventionist being may be detected if it chose to be or if it didn't
bother
to cover its tracks. But if we notice a striking similarity between such
things as
clotting factors and previously existing proteases, then the differences
between
models would be much harder to demonstrate. (I find that those invisible pink
unicorns are really tough to flush into the open!)
Of course, if observations do not permit us to distinguish between the two
models,
I think one would have a heck of a time justifying a preference for Model-B.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 23:50:18 EDT