Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: the real case against Falwell et al
Message-ID: <1266@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 14:39:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1266
Posted: Tue Jul  9 14:39:57 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 04:30:39 EDT
References: <356@imsvax.UUCP> <540@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 33


>> [Ted Holden]
>>    I believe  that a  world forged  entirely by chance
>> mutations  and  Darwinian  laws  would  be  a  world of
>> unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the  law of survival
>> of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality,
>> but never  perfection.  Such  a world  would resemble a
>> world created  by the Federal Government.  Consider the

> [Stanley Friesen]
>	Actually, this *is* essentially what we see.
> With a very few exceptions(mostly simple in nature),
> living things do not achieve perfection, only competence.

It may be observed here that Messrs. Holden and Friesen are both rather
subjective in their comments.  Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask:  what is
perfection?  Or competence?

Presumably competence could be defined for starters as the ability to
survive.  But that doesn't mean much; we get the same problems as when
trying to arrive at an independent criterion of 'fitness'.

----

What is really odd about Stanley's reply is that he makes the above
statement, and then later in the same article challenges Ted to
provide some addition criteria for evaluation of 'design'.

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"More agonizing, less organizing."                                  |