From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 11:15:21 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Sep29.003242.6@sycraft.com> ken@sycraft.com (Ken Richardson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.100020.27769@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
 
[deletions]

>> Not only does DNA-dating increase the integrity of the existing dating techniques,
>> it supports and CONFIRMS the theory of evolution even further. 
>
>Well, I appreciate your conviction.  But "confirmation" is a bit strong.
>
>I mean, consider for a moment: If you were the Creator, and you were about
>to create life, what techniques would you use to put order and simplicity
>into the task?  Object-oriented techniques!

[deletions]

>So while at first sight it may seem astounding that chimps and humans have
>99% similarity in their DNA, I would be surprised if that were *not* the
>case, considering the similarity of the overall "systems".  Assuming, of
>course, that object oriented techniques were applied in their creation.

[deletions]

>There is, after all, a high degree of similarity between DNA programs
>and computer programs.

 Well, now, they're not all *that* similar. At least, not to today's
programs. Our programs aren't massively parallel with large portions
of junk code using only a 20 (or so... how many amino acids again?)
member instruction set that routinely modify their own code, the
instructions in our programs for a specific task are right next to
each other rather than on the far side of the genome, etc., etc.
 But even this "design reuse" explanation has problems. It requires that
the Creator not only coded up prokaryotes first, but he then based later
designs (all later designs) on previous designs so that they could be
easily and almost unavoidably mapped onto a descent tree that just
happens to match almost perfectly the geological, paleontological, etc.,
etc., etc. evidence as to *when* It did it, and modified the code along
the way in extremely tiny steps and tried out all the prototypes along
the way.
 Also, this has difficulty accounting for the *differences* in design
along the way. In evolution, it makes sense to find several different
eye designs, some of them obviously kludged. (In the human eye, the light
must pass *through* the nerves to get to the photosensitive cells,
reducing the light-gathering ability. Not only that, but because the
nerves are *indside* the retina, they must get out somwhere, and so we
have blind spots. None of this is true for octopus eyes...) Pandas have
thumbs, but it is not a modified finger like our thumbs. It is a modified
*wrist* bone, which looks like a kludge when you see it. (When *I* see it,
anyway. Why not reuse the successful human code? Or was the Creator
experimenting? (Note that omniscience implies no need to experiment...)
 Finally, cheetas are much more closely related to the *canine* family than
the the feline family. (I was told this by my friend, a PhD in human
genetics. I have no other reference, though, so I can't absolutely confirm
this. *I* trust her word, anyway. :-> ) Now, evolution would say that,
since they are "filling a cat niche" (they have a lifestyle like the other
big cats) they would naturally have converged to similar forms. But, in
the design-reuse model, we say... what? There was this dog DNA laying
around, but the Creator was really a cat person?
 Oh, wait, one more. According to the fossil evidence, sabertooth tigers
evolved not just once, but several times. They were specialized to hunt
*big* cattle, and when the big cattle-like animals went extinct, so did the
tigers. Then, later on, some other cattle-like animal got big again when
conditions were right... and something else evolved into the sabertooth
niche again. Evolution can explain this handily. The design-reuse model...
um... the Creator couldn't make up It's mind?

>Ken Richardson		SyCraft Software
>ken@sycraft.com		Colorado Springs, CO


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.