Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Perfection
Message-ID: <802@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 14:54:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.802
Posted: Wed Jul 10 14:54:08 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 02:28:37 EDT
References: <356@imsvax.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 46

In article <356@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
> Consider the honeycomb, which represents  a  perfect
> solution  to a multi-dimentional optimization  problem.  The hexagonal
> shape  gives  maximum  strength  for  minimal   use  of material  with
> no  left-over  pockets,  and  the  ends dove-tail perfectly;  nothing
> is  wasted.

If the honeycomb is truly "the perfect structure", why are bees the only
creatures that use it?  Consider the wasps' nests which are basically made
of paper.  Consider flies and lady bugs and every other flying insect.
Why don't they *all* make and use honeycombs?  If the creator knew of and
implemented such a perfect structure, why didn't s/he stick with a good
thing?  Why did s/he let all the rest of the bugs live in kludges?

> Bees would need  engineering  degrees  with  math through 
> advanced calculus to  build such  a structure  by design.
                                                 ^^ ^^^^^^

Right.  But bees *don't* build it "by design" - they build it by instinct.
You say they got their instinct from a supernatural creator.  I won't
believe it until you can give me any reasonable explanation for why said
creator gave different housing instincts to every different "kind" of ...
everythings.  (Dan, are you out there?  I want to know how the creation
model "predicts" that every species would build a unique structure for
it's home.)

>      Indeed,  everywhere  you  look on this planet, you
> see craftsmanship;  it  is in  no wise  "scientific" to
> ignore something  so obvious.

Say, for example, birds nests.  Disorderly arrangements of twigs and mud
and bird shit.  And dung beetles - disgusting bugs that live in shit.
Then there's cancer.  And viruses and birth defects.

I don't want to disappoint anybody, but from a reasonably large perspec-
tive, things look about even.  There's some good stuff and some bad
stuff, there's some real neat tricky stuff and some real dull straight-
forward stuff, there's some clearly good, positive stuff and some clearly
evil, foul stuff.  There's even stuff in between.  And "it is in no wise
'scientific' to ignore something so obvious".

-- 

--JB                                 All we learn from history is that
                                       we learn nothing from history.