On 10/4/2012 9:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au
> Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution can only add
tangled bells and whistles to DOS.
John K Clark
> Actually, one could argue with this analogy. Linux bears no ancestral
with DOS - rather it is descended (in some sense) from Unix,
I know, that was my point. If Evolution was dissatisfied with DOS it couldn't start from
scratch and switch to a new operating system like Linux or Unix, it could only add more
bells and whistles to DOS. Actually it's even worse than that, imagine if you had to
improve DOS but you couldn't remove a single line of code or even part of a line unless
it conferred a IMMEDIATE advantage to the operation of the system, nor could you add a
line of code no matter how short unless it conferred a IMMEDIATE advantage to the
operation of the system.
I think you're overstating your case. Darwinian evolution couldn't add a line of code if
it produced a *disadvantage*. But it can add code that makes no difference at the
phenotype level. This is important for evolution because sometimes these neutral changes
get used in an advantageous change.
> Linux had less of a requirement to be backward compatible,
Yes, even for human designers once a standard is set it's not practical to switch to a
new one unless its enormously better; and with Evolution it's flat out impossible
because it can't backtrack its steps, that's why we're stuck with an eye with the blood
vessels and nerves put in backward.
But evolution can delete unused things. Our ancestors probably had tails. Our
descendants may not have a vermiform appendix.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at