Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!brl-vgr!wmartin From: wmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: creation/evolution followups - (nf) Message-ID: <2434@brl-vgr.ARPA> Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 14:28:55 EST Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.2434 Posted: Mon Mar 12 14:28:55 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 08:58:56 EST References: <6099@uiucdcs.UUCP> Organization: Ballistics Research Lab Lines: 36 It seems to me that the following argument could be used to support either creationism or evolution; has it ever been so used in the literature on the subject? If so, in which way? If not, which of the positions that follow the contention is right? (If either...) ***Given that: At least half, and probably more, of the things human beings do would be easier, faster, more accurate, and generally better if we had more than two hands. At least three hands are needed to manipulate most inanimate objects into the positions we want them to be in. Survival would be enhanced if we had 3 or more hands. ***End postulate*** Pro-creationism: This proves that human beings were created, not evolved -- if we had evolved, this obvious need would have been filled by evolutionary mutations and two-handed humans would have been supplanted by multi-handed mutants, who would by now be in ascendance. Since we have been placed here by God to suffer, due to Original Sin, we only have two hands because more would make life too easy. Pro-evolution: If humans had been created by God, He would have had the sense (being omniscient by definition) to create them with more hands, as He also created the environment where more than two hands are useful and sometimes necessary. Since we only have two hands, we only have what evolution provided via the path from proto-hominids, who only had the internal structure to support four limbs, so any mutant with more limbs was mal-adapted and died un-reproduced. ********** I think there's something wrong with the arguments above, but I'm not sure that there isn't something worthwhile in this sort of approach... Will Martin