AlunFoto wrote: > The "intelligent design" hypothesis has repeatedly tried to hold up > examples of irreducible complexity as signatures of a sentient, and > necessarily divine creator. > > One thing they repeatedly fail to take into consideration is that the > precursors of the traits they look at may have evolved for other > purposes than the present. The bacterium flagella held up by Michael > Behe is afaik the latest example of just that. In many organisms, > however, one finds the molecular components that make up the flagella > applied for other purposes, and the combination of the components > isn't as big a step up as Behe argues. > > Another thing they don't consider is that an organ can have an > evolutionary advantage in simpler forms than the present. The > mammalian eye used to be a favourite example; that if you took away > any of the parts of the eye it wouldn't work, and ipso facto it must > have been created, not evolved. Not so, because even the most > primitive photoreceptors would give an advantage to those who posessed > them over those who didn't. In addition, there is the fact that there > are many different eye constructions out there, all quite advanced in > today's organisms. The insect/arthropod eye with all its facets, the > vertebrate eyes (quite different between fish and say, whales, but > still sharing many anatomical features). Arguably, the most advanced > eye belongs not to a vertrabrate, but to an octopus. For example, the > octopus eye does not have a blind spot like all vertebrate eyes have. > > Ultimately, the concept of a designer also begs the question of who > designed the designer. > > Jostein
HA! You read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I thoroughly enjoyed that book (I received it as, of all things, a Christmas present!). Dawkins is a kind of hero to me. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
