Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: the real case against Falwell et al
Message-ID: <564@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 18:56:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.564
Posted: Mon Jul 15 18:56:53 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 03:16:43 EDT
References: <356@imsvax.UUCP> <540@psivax.UUCP> <1266@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 63
Summary: 

In article <1266@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
>
>>> [Ted Holden]
>>>    I believe  that a  world forged  entirely by chance
>>> mutations  and  Darwinian  laws  would  be  a  world of
>>> unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the  law of survival
>>> of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality,
>>> but never  perfection.  Such  a world  would resemble a
>>> world created  by the Federal Government.  Consider the
>
>> [Stanley Friesen]
>>	Actually, this *is* essentially what we see.
>> With a very few exceptions(mostly simple in nature),
>> living things do not achieve perfection, only competence.
>
>It may be observed here that Messrs. Holden and Friesen are both rather
>subjective in their comments.  Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask:  what is
>perfection?  Or competence?
>
>Presumably competence could be defined for starters as the ability to
>survive.  But that doesn't mean much; we get the same problems as when
>trying to arrive at an independent criterion of 'fitness'.
>
>----
>
>What is really odd about Stanley's reply is that he makes the above
>statement, and then later in the same article challenges Ted to
>provide some addition criteria for evaluation of 'design'.
>
	I admit this phraseology is rather subject, but I was just
responding using Mr Holden's choice of concepts. I will try to make
the matter somewhat less subjective. I would start by noting that Mr
Holden's concept of "perfection" would imply that the structure/behavior
of an organism would be optimal(i.e unimprovable) for its lifestyle
and situation. This, then, reduces to simple engineering analysis.
My observation above was basically that if you look carefully at the
living world you will find suboptimal "design" quite regularly. For
instance, a supension style support structure which is excellent for
a *horizontal* support being used as a *vertical* support(the Human
vertebral column - with all of its "back-problems"). Or look at the
*failure* rate among top carnivores, most capture only a small percent
of the prey they attempt, far less than any competent Human hunter.
Then there is the incredible kludge that is the circuit design of the
mammalian brain! It *works*, but it only by dint of what in a human
designed system would be considered an incredible series of makeshifts
and patches! In the higher mammals the brain is composed of at least
three more of less complete sub-"brains" each operating by inhibiting
some of the function of the next lower brain. Then there is the side
brain(called the cerebellum or little brain) which provides
synchronization and stabilization of output signal by *splining* the
ouytput of higher centers! Imagine a computer in which the output of
the main CPU was only approximately correct and the results are
filtered through an output processor which checks the results and
corrects "errors", this is essentially what the Cerebellum does!
Such examples go no and on, and I hardly think that the idea of
"perfection" in the living world can be maintained in the face of
such evidence.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen