On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 04:29:26 +0000 (UTC), 
John Wilkins  wrote:
> wrote:

[snip]

>> I disagree. The *noun* "design" *does* apply in this
case. The result
>> of the random process of mutation and selection was a
"design" in the
>> sense of some pattern that is useful toward functionning of some
>> device. The "design" in a bird's wing is part anatomy and part
>> biochemistry. The principals of operation of a bird's wing are such and
>> such (involving neurotransmitters, muscle cells, tendons, leverage,
>> porous bones, feathers to catch air, tipping angle of attack to vary
>> drag and lift, overall balance, etc.). What single word, other than
>> "design", would you prefer for such principals of operation of a
>> naturally-evolved device (more correctly: an artifact of a
>> naturally-evolved genome)?
> 
> "Anatomy"? "Life-cycle"? Why use a loaded term
like "design", other 
> than because such terms resonate with our inherited tendency to
> anthropomorphise nature?

I agree with John. I do not think that life looks designed. I think
that living species are the end result millions of years of evolution.
Evolution has no purpose and no goal and it does not produce designed 
species. That's the result we see around us.

We do see adaptations, among other things. Adaptations are not design.
Adaptations are the end result of perfectly natural processes that
we understand quite well. Adaptations have the appearance of design
but that's an illusion based on our anthropomorphic view of the
world.




Larry Moran
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/25/04 6:32:11 PM