From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Tue Aug 12 2003 - 21:19:33 EDT
Sarah wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Sarah Berel-Harrop
>Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:10 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells
>
>
>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:30:35 +0000
> "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>David-
>>
>>
>>Doesn't it seem easier to make the claim that shell
>>shapes were derived without intelligent intervention if
>>the patterns are readily identifiable as essential to
>>organismal viability rather than simply aesthetics or
>>emergent beauty?
>
>Sorry about sending a blank email to everyone, I pressed
>"send" inadvertently.
But it was a very well composed email. Thanks. :-)
>
>Why does the lack of apparent function imply intelligent
>intervention? It puts me in mind of the spandrel paper,
>which I read about but only scanned. A cursory look at
>some of the criticisms (eg, Pinker) shows the concern is
>not over the existence of spandrels, but over a concern
>that Gould and Lewontin misrepresent the "adaptionist"
>position, ie, that virtually all evolutionary biologists
>consider that adaptive function is not required for a
>trait to become fixed in a population.
This whole ID thing is becoming crazier. ID is able to explain things which
aren't required for existence, yet ID can't be detected in the items which
are really important for life. Wow. Of what use, then is the form of ID
advocated by Josh?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 12 2003 - 21:20:18 EDT