EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
cos I think I was eloquent and stuffWith the greatest respect gorgeous, I have difficulty believing that an inteligent designer would come up with the beautiful intricate simplicity of the Kreb's cycle, or the amazing function of the liver, and at the same time fail to realise that using the same design of spinal column for both bipeds and quadrupeds would cause serious problems. Chance mutation and chance provide an adequate explanation for the diversity we see today, given a long enough time frame and large enough populations, and ALSO explains why some of the design features implicit in animals seem to be jury rigging and co-opting of existing structures, in a "near enough is good enough" sort of way. Evolution only has to get a system adequate for passing on genes successfully to the next generation. I would expect an inteligent designer to be a bit more... well, intelligent, bluntly. Blind chance evolution provides a better explanation than a half-arsed designer who couldn't see that that whole detachable retina feature, or swim blader to lungs compromise was going to end up causing problems.
Simply put, if there is an inteligent designer, I want to know why the hardware isn't more user friendly?
Upvote
0