From: ccogan@telepath.com (Chris Cogan)
Chris:
>First, the idea that chance can *never* (as Bertvan puts it) result in an
>improvement in the genes of an organism is like the idea that one can
>*never* get the right answer on a multiple-choice test question by randomly
>selecting an answer (based on rolling a die, for example).
Bertvan:
I quite agree that one might randomly get the right answer to a
mulitple-choice test, but I doubt you'd randomly get a correct answer
consisting of several hundred words. Most biolgical systems are specified
by thousands of nucleotides.
Chris:
>Thus, Bertvan's argument ends up undercutting her own position, because, if
>organisms *were* designed, there'd be no need whatever for such a degree of
>adaptability to changes in genes; each set of genes could be *precisely*
>tuned from the start so that every part would work *perfectly* with all the
>others, and thus never need to adjust to errant genetic changes. The fact
>that there is such flexibility does not, of course *prove* that there is no
>designer, but it certainly argues against the need for one, and makes the
>designer (in yet another way) superfluous.
Bertvan
If I were the designer, I would include intelligence as a basic part of the
design. That would be maximum flexibility - giving life itself the ability
to make on the spot choices. Do you believe life is designed to be flexible,
or did it occur by chance? Flexibility seems pretty wide spread to merely be
the result of chance.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
--------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 05 2000 - 14:20:38 EST