Re: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis!

[revtec]

----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 3:48 PM Subject: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis! Harry Veeder wrote: Personally I do not feel life BEGINS by chance, although the subsequent evolution is plausibly Darwinian. Perhaps an E.T. (not necessarily God) has been 'guiding' the evolution of life on this planet. I find this hypothesis intensely annoying! It does not solve the problem; it merely removes it from our planet to some other planet. If ET #1 guided our evolution, do we assume that some other ET (#2) was there to guide ET #1, and did #3 guide #2? It is an infinite recursion. At some point, an intelligent species must have arisen from purely natural causes without intervention by any other species. Since it had to happen at least once, why shouldn't we assume it happened again on earth?   In the entire book "Origin of the Species", Darwin never once touched the subject of origin of the species.  I read it cover to cover and it isn't there!  I consider all the "evidence" I have ever  seen for evolution to be somewhere between laughable and pathetic.  Yet, you are right.  Somewhere down the line of "creators", someone got evolved, most likely at someplace outside this universe. This leads us to THE MOTHER OF ALL PARADOXES.  (PARADOXI)?   How can an entity, who is simple enough to evolve, create another entity that is too complex to evolve?   By how many orders of magnitude are todays human technologists short of producing an electro/bio/mechanical creation that is more complex than the human body itself, and does anyone think we could ultimately do it?  A Star Trek type Data would probably qualify. The hypothesis is also annoying because it is not falsifiable. Regarding the Darwin quote: Yes he said that, but it has not been demonstrated that any organ exists which could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications. Indeed, every organ I know of still has numerous existing successive slight modifications remaining in primitive species, including eyes, an example Darwin cited. Primitive eyes that can only sense the direction of light are way better than no eyes at all.   When you have eyes that can't quite see and wings that can't quite fly, what evolutionary force can bring these useless structures to completion?  A winged but flightless animal that is in all other respects similar to its relatives would be at a distinct disadvantage when competing for existance as he drags these encumbering growths through life.  Natural selection would eliminate this creature before he could pass on the somehow improved genetic traits that would form a flyable offspring.  And, where would this freak find a suitable mate that would amplify the trait by allowing the improved wing gene to dominate? Plus, anyone who thinks evolution is slow (or it does not exist) should learn about the growing crisis in antibiotic resistant diseases.   Your talking about adaptation variation or "mircoevolution".  I have no problem believing that.  We see it all the time.  With time money and education anyone can produce a new type of dog.  But, when you are finished it is still a dog!  You can't breed it to become a cat.   This illustrates why ignorance is dangerous. We are frittering away the most potent drugs ever invented, mainly using them to keep the cost of meat low in the US. If this continues for a few more generations we will be back to the world as it was before 1940, when ordinary diseases often killed people of all ages. We have already thrown way the opportunity to eliminate tuberculosis, one of the most virulent diseases. - Jed