Re: paleonet Stupid design

[Judith Harris <harrisj@xxxxxxx>]

I didn't think that we were talking about "optimization" or that 
particular morphologies were evolutionarily stupid but that a Creator 
would not make them that way.

Also the idea of a Creator making every single thing seems rather 
"stupid", since we are using that word, to me. It is much more complex, 
beautiful, and spiritual to think of the universe as being God, that 
the universe is much more than this thin slice that we see as the 
material world. The other, whether it be Creationism (Christian of 
course), ID, or other metaphors that we have taken literally, seems 
very materialistic and boring.

Enough out of me.

judith harris
professor emerita

On Apr 9, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Nikolaus Malchus wrote:

> Antithesis:
>
> There is no stupid design.
> A certain design of organisms is only observable to us because it was
> evolutionary successful. Species are not evolutionary one-night stands.
>
> The bivalve arcoid duplivincular ligament type has been seen as "weak" 
> and
> not very successful in the past, in part because it is functionally
> inefficient for digging. Nevertheless, the design has survived since 
> the
> Ordovician and many other ligament types evolved from it.
>
> It is an error, in my view, to evaluate the design of a single organ 
> in this
> way. In the case of bivalves it is the functional triangle between
> adductors, hinge teeth and ligament that make it fit for some type of 
> action
> (but not for all).
>
> Evolution is a process and evolutionary optimization takes time. I 
> agree
> that organisms inherit organ designs that do not appear very 
> functional in a
> certain context, but was this the reason why T. rex died out?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niko
>
>>>
>>> I think it's oversimplification to try to assert that, for example,
>>> 500mm forelimbs were an important and beneficial design aspect of the
>>> T. rex body plan, giving it a great advantage over its competitors in
>>> the natural selection game, and you won't hear me make that
>>> statement.  The point is that the point of view that matters (if such
>>> exists) is bigger than ours.
>>
>> As far as I know (but I am not a specialist), the usual interpretation
>> is that the legs of the T. rex developed for good reasons (running for
>> prey) but the forelimbs did not and remained ridiculously short and
>> useless because of lack of evolutionary pressure.
>> The power of the natural selection model lies in the failures it 
>> allows.
>> As Paul pointed, this may not be significant to creationists, but in
>> what I understand of the ID, this may be a major issue, as long as ID
>> pretends to stay on "scientific" arguments.
>>
>> JLV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ---
> ADDRESS: Dept. de Geologia/Unitat Paleontologia, Universitat Autònoma 
> de
> Barcelona, Campus,
> Edifici Cs, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Catalunya, SPAIN
> ---
> Tel xx34-93-581-1464/Fax -1263
> ---
> n.malchus@gmx.net (admits larger attachments)
> nikolaus.malchus@uab.es (max. 2MB for attachments)
> ---
>
>