Perfect example that the exact same words can express the diametric
opposite concepts - and i see this argument a lot from creationists!
The sequence of random events ARE exactly and only those necessary to
create the species. The fallacy is that the result was intended,
desired, or even important. It's just the inevitable result of the
events that DID happen.
Executive summary: No design work necessary. Random events will, in
time, produce Shakespere. Natural selection just speeds up the
Just curious but how do you know the universe is NOT "teeming with
life?" Last I checked we hadn't really looked much beyond this tiny
little piece we call home.
I have no problem believing that the complexities that we see could have
evolved given the billions of years they've had to work with.
Well at least on earth life has been around for something like a billion
years give or take a few hundred million. Given the number of
successful organisms and the variety that we now have seems like we've
had an awful lot of luck when you consider the number of successful
random mutations that had to have occurred and in enough numbers in any
given species to create enough viable offspring.
As far as the universe goes,, well we haven't heard from them yet either
in person or by radio so...I have my doubts. I know the klingons are
out there somewhere though..
Well there is the joke that when contact is finally made the aliens are
asked why they didn't talk to us earlier and they simply bow theirs
heads and shake them side to side chanting, "Married with children,
Married with children...."
This assumes that all of the other species "out there" are more highly
advanced than we are here on Sol 3, at least from a technological point
of view. How do you know this is the case? Could it be possible that
WE are the most highly advanced life form in this neck of the universe?
Somebody has to be first. Why not us?
You can't see it because the timescale is absolutely beyond the
comprehension of most people. Do you really know how long 3.8 billion
years is? That's 3 point eight times ten to the ninth. The complexities
we see did not happen all at once. They happened over trillions of
generations over billions of years, and built upon one another.
Well, someone once said, if you believe your tailbone is vestigal, then he
will pay to have yours removed.
Im sorry but I dont think there are such things as vestigal organs. There
are organs that have been thought to be vestigal but are not. Like your
appendix, it is a part of your immune system, you can live without it but
you will get more diseases. You can live without your arms and legs and
eyes/ear, so does that mean its vestigal?
Saying random chances created life and everything is like finding a computer
or a cell phone and saying it made itself.
Are you confusing your appendix with your spleen?
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117
"Vestigial" doesn't mean "better off without" or even "useless". It
merely means that it has a reduced and rudimentary structure compared
to the same structure in other organisms. The functions they perform
are done using structures that are clearly capable of more complex
behavior. Non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigial
character. (For example, the wings of an ostrich are vestigial, even
though they are clearly useful for balance, courtship displays, and
defense; they are merely not used in the complex way that wings are
usually used on birds.)
It's a bit like using a television to hammer in a nail. The television
would serve a function, and would even perform the function to which I
was setting it. Clearly, though, the television was not designed
merely to pound in nails, which one can see if one compares it to the
televisions in entertainment systems elsewhere.
Besides, even if my tailbone *were* useless, why would I submit to an
operation to remove it? Any operation is, by its very invasive nature,
hazardous. Why submit to a pointless hazard with no (or almost no)
Nope. You have the wrong definition of "vestigial". See above.
No -- it's more akin to finding laws under which pieces of
cell-phone-like structures tend to organize spontaneously, and then
arguing that the cell phones we see with no clear origin could have
Biological proteins tend to organize spontaneously under the laws of
organic chemistry. Your analogy is flawed because we have observed no
laws that allow elements to combine on their own into the small
structures required for a cell phone.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.