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." |