In article <475c486d$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Not saying I agree with that idea, but that's the counter argument that
 
> > I've run into in the past myself.
> 
> Sure, except that's factually incorrect. It's easy to do experiments to
 
> show it's pretty trivial to evolve something that does a rather 
> sophisticated function without actually designing how it does it, and 
> indeed with the result being difficult or impossible to analyze for how
 
> it works. In other words, no, the watch doesn't imply the watchmaker.
> 
Someone actually did this, though I don't remember the link, and sadly, 
it wasn't animated, just based on mathematical calculations. He had 
clocks that where accurate to within a few hundredths of a second, 
roughly similar to a real mechanical clock, within 14-20 generations, 
every single time. lol

> This is the same "I can't imagine how it could be anything else, so I 
> must be right."  The old "since my imagination is inadequate, I must be
 
> right" argument. They said the same thing about thunder too.
> 
Yep.


-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message