>Again, it may only be due to my non-experience with the subject, but HOW CAN
>THIS BE? A proto-digital watch (or a proto-mousetrap or a proto-motorcycle,
>for that matter) doesn't strike me as being functional AT ALL. It is true
>that I may only be ignorant of possible explanations, but one grows
>suspicious when the alleged explanations aren't forthcoming. . .
This is a good question Andy. I believe the confusion here lies in the
requirement for the proto-structure to have a similar function as the final
structure. Why is this required? If we can agree that a proto-mousetrap
does not have to necessarily trap mice, then this confusion is minimized.
For a simple exercise, let's look at evolution in the forward direction.
Say you take a motorcycle and add wings to it. It is now an airplane, but
it never "evolved" into an airplane by gradually improving on its ability to
fly.
Of course this is all philosophical at this stage. But, then so is the idea
of irreducible complexity.
>
>I'm sure there are some on this list who are laughing out loud by now.
>Please-tear this message apart! I learn the fastest when confronted with my
>own mistakes.
How refreshing.
Steve
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
"Now how does one alter the charge on the niobium ball? 'Well at tha
t stage', said my friend, 'we spray it with positrons to increase the charge
or with electrons to decrease the charge.' From that day forth I've been a
scientific realist. So far as I'm concerned, if you can spray them then
they are real. Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening, 1983
____________________________________________________________