>
>Actually, it is now believed that *all* eyes, invertebrate and
>vertebrate, are derived from the *one* gene-complex, a stunning
>confirmation of my theory and a non-prediction/expectation of
>Neo-Darwinian "blind watchmaker" evolution:
>
Thanks for the info on ey. I have a hard time understanding
how this is a confirmation of your theory and also why its
such a blow to Neo-Darwinism. Dawkins discusses this in
his new book <Climbing Mount Improbable>, however I've
left the book at home and can't remember any details. Perhaps
this is an interesting case to pursue with further discussions.
[...]
>
>LH>Suppose we have a complex biological feature which we believe
>>probably required supernatural intervention. Now suppose this
>>feature is found in multiple groups whose common ancesters go back
>>well before the first appearance of that feature? Should we
>>hypothesize multiple instances of supernatural intervention to
>>achieve similar features? Does this seem less "elegant" than a
>>single intervention? Should we hypothesize a single intervention
>>with a very long dormancy? Or would this pattern suggest to you
>>that, perhaps, that *particular* feature probably arose through
>>natural mechanisms? If so, why?
>
>I would assume "a single intervention with a very long dormancy". It
>may even be that all the entire gene complexes in the animal kingdon
>were built-in right from the Cambrian Explosion, but only activated
>or unmasked later when needed. In fact, that would be my (but not
>necessarily God's) preferred most "elegant" method.
>
That was a really great question by Loren (Loren, how do you think
up such questions? :) and also a pretty good reply by Steve. Before
I go on let me say that I do not intend in any way to criticize
Steve's or anyone else's views about what is more elegant than
what. This seems a matter of personal taste strongly influenced
by one's view of God and how He goes about His business.
Let me try to summarize the dilemma as I see it regarding
elegance. One intervention seems somehow more elegant
than multiple interventions, at least when such interventions
involve the same or very similar feature. But an intervention
many millions of years before it is required doesn't seem to me
to jive too well with the general concept of "intervention". It
also starts to look more and more like TE. There are many
folks who consider themselves TE's yet believe that God
intervened once at the origin of life, or perhaps once at the
origin of the first replicator. Or perhaps just once at the
origin of the universe. Why would these views not be even
more elegant than a delayed intervention at the Cambrian
and other strategic points.
Now, I really don't expect that you will agree that this is more
elegant, but hopefully you can understand why some of us
think it is.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |