From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 00:11:46 EDT
Hi Richard,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of richard@biblewheel.com
>Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:55 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Cambrian Explosion
>
>I think the difference is that Life does not evolve in the same way as the
>heavy elements. These are two completely different kinds of "evolution." In
>physics we talk about the "time evolution operator"which is simply
>exp(-iHt) where H is the Hamilonian. This describes how a physical system
>changes (evolves) over time. This is radically different than the idea of
>Darwinian evolution through mutation and natural selection.
>
>Another reason for the difference is that the heavy elements are not
>machines and give no immediate appearance of design, whereas life *appears*
>prima facie to be designed to accomplish specific puposes (e.g. the spider
>catching
>flies in its web, etc).
I would disagree. The fact that the nuclear force is such to allow stable
elements and the electrical force is of the strength it is, so that stable
chemistry can occur HAS to be part of any design. Afterall, if chemistry
doesn't work, then neither do spiders.
And if the 'design' of the elements is due to evolution, then why must we
consider the spider as being due to anything else? Still seems inconsistent
to me.
glenn
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 00:12:18 EDT