Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The DNA does /not/ say "grow this femur until it is 47.2cm long". How 
> long your femur /actually/ ends up being depends on things like 
> nutrition and so forth as well. But more to the point, the DNA doesn't 
> contain a diagram that says "this is what the result should look like", 
> and contains something more like assembly instructions.

  I think that the best concept that describes it emergent behavior.
The DNA molecules are arranged so that when they react chemically with
different compunds, the process ends up building a living being as
emergent behavior.

  Emergent behavior is a rather interesting topic all in itself, and goes
deep down to the very basic foundations of what makes the universe like
it is.

> For example, apparently in New Guinea there are kangaroos that live /in 
> trees/. This despite the self-evident fact that kangaroos are obviously 
> "designed" to live on the ground. "A kangaroo in a tree sounds pretty 
> weird", you might say, "but I bet /these/ kangaroos are supremely well 
> adapted to it".

> Um, not really, no. I watched some video of one, and after it spent 5 
> minutes hesitantly staggering from one branch to the one next to it, you 
> can't help feeling like you want to scream at it "what the hell are you 
> doing?! You obviously can't climb to save your life, so stop prating 
> around in that tree and get down here where you belong!" But, 
> apparently, they never do. They live all their lives in trees. Even 
> though they can barely climb and it takes them hours to get anywhere. 
> Intelligent Design? I think not. But apparently, on New Guinea, there's 
> nothing that can climb trees any better, so they survive.

  That kind of argument is not going to convince any young earth
creationist, so it's futile to even try.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message