At 8:01 AM -0600 3/21/02, Rod Hetzel wrote: >Would you please provide some specific examples to support your >assertions? What are the specific "satisfactory answers" that >evolutionary scientists have established in response to the irreducible >complexity examples asserted by intelligent design theorists?
A shorter answer than the other Paul's: Feathers: The earliest feathers were not adequate for the function of flight; they probably evolved as a heat retention mechanism (for which they are still quite effective -- I wore a down jacket on this chilly Minnesota Spring morning ;-). Eyes: Phototropism is functional even on the bacterial level. The earliest approximations to eyes would have served a more general light sensitivity function. In general, intelligent design assumes that a given structure must always have had the same function -- this is its fatal mistake. On the topic of unintelligent design: Would an intelligent designer have designed the human back? Talk to an engineer! The mammalian brain is what the computer types call a kludge -- a patched together conglomeration of existing parts which originally served different functions. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
