tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3270847726711764307..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: When I Pointed Out the Evolutionary Tree Has Failed Two Professors Gave Me PushbackUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63880588342443848642012-06-17T08:49:55.332-07:002012-06-17T08:49:55.332-07:00Blas: You posted before:
Zachriel: The recurrent ...<b>Blas</b>: <i>You posted before:</i><br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (not the neck). </i><br /><br />We also posted this: <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>the detour of the laryngeal nerve in giraffes is an example. </i><br /><br />In giraffes. What did you think we were talking about? The nerve also exists in camelids, but they no longer enervate the larynx. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>You are a dishonest like most of darwinist. </i><br /><br />So your ignorant disagreement with the vast majority of the scientific community means others are dishonest. Good luck with that.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17543043656802725612012-06-17T07:37:54.755-07:002012-06-17T07:37:54.755-07:00Zachriel said
"Also, while the recurrent ner...Zachriel said<br /><br />"Also, while the recurrent nerve doesn't innervate the larynx, it still winds around the aortic arch and ascends to the trachea."<br /><br />You are a dishonest like most of darwinist.<br />You posted before:<br /><br />“The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx.”<br /><br />"That's right. The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx."<br /><br />"The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (not the neck)."<br /><br />And now when I bring an example of animals that has different innervation of the larinx you recognizes the other function of the recurrent nerve. You move the goal, as usual do darwinists whit his explanations.<br />And I am perverse because I withold provisional assent! Sorry I would be stupid if I do not withold assent to darwinists.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49329675868345035272012-06-17T07:35:39.672-07:002012-06-17T07:35:39.672-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91102283981784265302012-06-17T07:19:26.782-07:002012-06-17T07:19:26.782-07:00Blas: The direct innervtion of the larinx in some ...<b>Blas</b>: <i>The direct innervtion of the larinx in some families of camelides is evidence against common descent? </i><br /><br />The superior laryngeal nerve is characteristic in mammals. Also, while the recurrent nerve doesn't innervate the larynx, it still winds around the aortic arch and ascends to the trachea. It's exactly the pattern expected of incremental modification of existing designs, rather than taking inspiration from previous designs and building from scratch.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11683438580977491772012-06-16T15:36:36.751-07:002012-06-16T15:36:36.751-07:00Zachriel said
“Notice that way up the thread, you ...Zachriel said<br />“Notice that way up the thread, you have already said it is a *comparison* for a *given function*. As we pointed out, it's not value-laden if we provide an objective measure related to the *given function*.”<br /><br />Discussing logically with darwinists is very though, lest try a different way you said:<br /><br />“ It goes down, then up, a circuitous route which is exaggerated in the giraffe. When you examine multiple organisms, it's clear that this is because the giraffe is an incremental adaptation of a common ancestor with other mammals. There was no opportunity to redesign from scratch, so kludges were used.”<br /><br />So this supposed kludge is evidence of common ancestor and an incremental adaptation. <br />The direct innervtion of the larinx in some families of camelides is evidence against common descent? Or evolution can do both solve and do not solve the kludges depending of the obsevation?<br />Is that evolution of the gaps?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40828410640381771362012-06-16T10:02:44.674-07:002012-06-16T10:02:44.674-07:00Blas: Yes, but we started this saying not better b...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Yes, but we started this saying not better bad good/bad design, </i><br /><br />No. You started with whether one organism is "superior" to another. (Of course, bacteria are superior because they coopt humans to give them a warm gut to live in, feed them, and fly them into space, among other things. Superiority, in this sense, is value-laden.)<br /><br />Then you introduced this, <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Good or bad in this case refers to its match to function, not whether you like it or not. </i><br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>when evolutionist talk about that refers that exists a better solution for that function, and is value-laded. </i><br /><br />Notice that way up the thread, you have already said it is a *comparison* for a *given function*. As we pointed out, it's not value-laden if we provide an objective measure related to the *given function*. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Interesting how darwinists likes to change words now "bad design" is a kludge. </i><br /><br />Again, way up in the thread, we pointed out that the relative merits of the design doesn't necessarily tell us a lot, but being a kludge provides us information about the design process. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Can you explain how you arrive the conclusion that it is an "obvious" kludge and what that indicates about the design process? </i><br /><br />A kludge is a "configuration that, while inelegant, inefficient, clumsy, or patched together, succeeds in solving a specific problem or performing a particular task."<br /><br />If workers need to adapt machinery, they may run a pipe or cable in a circuitous fashion around and about the existing structure, even though if they were to start over, they may find a more direct and obvious route which is not available when working with the existing machine. This is called a kludge. Over time, machines may become a complex web of kludges. Eventually, workers may tear it down, in whole or in part, and eliminate many of the kludges. <br /><br />In the case of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, it's clear that is would make more sense for the nerve to have a more direct route. However, it doesn't. It goes down, then up, a circuitous route which is exaggerated in the giraffe. When you examine multiple organisms, it's clear that this is because the giraffe is an incremental adaptation of a common ancestor with other mammals. There was no opportunity to redesign from scratch, so kludges were used.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75166464178128984182012-06-16T07:45:53.852-07:002012-06-16T07:45:53.852-07:00Zachriel said
"If something does the same jo...Zachriel said<br /><br />"If something does the same job with fewer materials, less energy, shorter delay-time, and a lower risk of injury or deterioration with no advantages, then it is reasonable to consider it a better design."<br /><br />Yes, but we started this saying not better bad good/bad design, and we have agree that same job should be defined and the choosing of fewer materials, lower risk injury,are only part of the categories you can take in count in order to evaluate the goodnes of the design. So yes, given the parameters to define which is better design you can take two design and say which is better. Apply this to any example of life. <br /><br />"But that's not the main point, even though you keep returning to it. The main point is that it is an obvious kludge, an indicator of its design process."<br /><br />Interesting how darwinists likes to change words now "bad design" is a kludge. <br />The kludge is obviuos if your definitions about job and performances are accepted and then compare the possibilities of design.<br />Can you explain how you arrive the conclusion that it is an "obvious" kludge and what that indicates about the design process?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77235255935641509892012-06-16T05:49:33.035-07:002012-06-16T05:49:33.035-07:00Blas: If you want say that it is a bad design beca...<b>Blas</b>: <i>If you want say that it is a bad design because a shorter nerve will give the advantage of the speed, good, but that is a value-ladded concept. </i><br /><br />If something does the same job with fewer materials, less energy, shorter delay-time, and a lower risk of injury or deterioration with no advantages, then it is reasonable to consider it a better design. <br /><br />But that's not the main point, even though you keep returning to it. The main point is that it is an obvious kludge, an indicator of its design process.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49432647465585572712012-06-15T12:18:44.900-07:002012-06-15T12:18:44.900-07:00"The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor..."The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (not the neck). And a non-circuitous nerve would do the same job, with fewer materials, less energy, shorter delay-time, and a lower risk of injury or deterioration."<br /><br /><br /> The Superior Laryngeal Nerve (n. laryngeus superior) larger than the preceding, arisesfrom the middle of the ganglion nodosum and in its course receives a branch from the superior cervical ganglion of the sympathetic. It descends, by the side of the pharynx, behind the internal carotid artery, and divides into two branches, external and internal.<br /> 16<br /> The external branch (ramus externus), the smaller, descends on the larynx, beneath the Sternothyreoideus, to supply the Cricothyreoideus. It gives branches to the pharyngeal plexus and the Constrictor pharyngis inferior, and communicates with the superior cardiac nerve, behind the common carotid artery.<br /> 17<br /> The internal branch (ramus internus) descends to the hyothyroid membrane, pierces it in company with the superior laryngeal artery, and is distributed to the mucous membrane of the larynx. Of these branches some are distributed to the epiglottis, the base of the tongue, and the epiglottic glands; others pass backward, in the aryepiglottic fold, to supply the mucous membrane surrounding the entrance of the larynx, and that lining the cavity of the larynx as low down as the vocal folds. A filament descends beneath the mucous membrane on the inner surface of the thyroid cartilage and joins the recurrent nerve.<br /> 18<br /> The Recurrent Nerve (n. recurrens; inferior or recurrent laryngeal nerve) arises, on theright side, in front of the subclavian artery; winds from before backward around that vessel, and ascends obliquely to the side of the trachea behind the common carotid artery, and either in front of or behind the inferior thyroid artery. On the left side, it arises on the left of the arch of the aorta, and winds below the aorta at the point where the ligamentum arteriosum is attached, and then ascends to the side of the trachea. The nerve on either side ascends in the groove between the trachea and esophagus, passes under the lower border of the Constrictor pharyngis inferior, and enters the larynx behind the articulation of the inferior cornu of the thyroid cartilage with the cricoid; it is distributed to all the muscles of the larynx, excepting the Cricothyreoideus. It communicates with the internal branch of the superior laryngeal nerve, and gives off a few filaments to the mucous membrane of the lower part of the larynx.<br /> 19<br /> As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.<br /> 20<br /> The Superior Cardiac Branches (rami cardiaci superiores; cervical cardiac branches), two or three in number, arise from the vagus, at the upper and lower parts of the neck.<br /> 21<br /> The upper branches are small, and communicate with the cardiac branches of the sympathetic. They can be traced to the deep part of the cardiac plexus.<br /> 22<br /> The lower branch arises at the root of the neck, just above the first rib. That from the right vagus passes in front or by the side of the innominate artery, and proceeds to the deep part of the cardiac plexus; that from the left runs down across the left side of the arch of the aorta, and joins the superficial part of the cardiac plexus.<br /><br /><br />Darwinists always underestimates de complexity of life. <br />What a design! <br />Do you have one to compare in any kind of performance?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11183217160051927492012-06-15T12:17:30.693-07:002012-06-15T12:17:30.693-07:00Zachriel said
"We've pointed this out be...Zachriel said<br /><br />"We've pointed this out before. They have different functions. Nor does the circuitous route provide an advantage of speed."<br /><br />Yes we have been discussing for a while and you agree<br />"Blas: You have to define "the same job" and compare with another design doing "the same job" and on the basis of a defined performance. <br /><br />That's right. The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx. "<br /><br />If you want say that it is a bad design because a shorter nerve will give the advantage of the speed, good, but that is a value-ladded concept. <br /><br />continueBlashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46013302479909171022012-06-15T11:09:01.335-07:002012-06-15T11:09:01.335-07:00Blas: Like an F1 engine is bigger and less fuel ef...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Like an F1 engine is bigger and less fuel efficient than an engine for a compact car. </i><br /><br />We've pointed this out before. They have different functions. Nor does the circuitous route provide an advantage of speed. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>For the same purpose, for you is the purpose of the nerve itself to me is the motion and sensation of a long neck ruminant mammal. </i><br /><br />The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (not the neck). And a non-circuitous nerve would do the same job, with fewer materials, less energy, shorter delay-time, and a lower risk of injury or deterioration.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82813258794073176442012-06-15T10:28:00.339-07:002012-06-15T10:28:00.339-07:00Zachriel said
"A circuitous route is less ef...Zachriel said<br /><br />"A circuitous route is less efficient because it takes more materials, more energy, and more exposure to injury or decay."<br /><br />Like an F1 engine is bigger and less fuel efficient than an engine for a compact car.<br /> <br /><br />"The function is specific and well-defined."<br /><br />Like the function for en engine, the design will depend if what you want to do with the engine.<br /><br /><br /> "The design to compare it with is one without a circuitous route."<br /><br />For the same purpose, for you is the purpose of the nerve itself to me is the motion and sensation of a long neck ruminant mammal. Who is right?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49972618003459104062012-06-15T10:11:04.294-07:002012-06-15T10:11:04.294-07:00Blas: This is an " a priori" subjective ...<b>Blas</b>: <i>This is an " a priori" subjective conclusion. </i><br /><br />A circuitous route is less efficient because it takes more materials, more energy, and more exposure to injury or decay. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Then we have to find another design to compare an the parameter to compare. </i><br /><br />The function is specific and well-defined. The design to compare it with is one without a circuitous route.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14216055691075448402012-06-15T09:17:17.799-07:002012-06-15T09:17:17.799-07:00ZachrielJune 15, 2012 8:59 AM
"It's evid...ZachrielJune 15, 2012 8:59 AM<br /><br />"It's evidence of a kludge, because the circuitous route is much less efficient than a direct route."<br /><br />This is an " a priori" subjective conclusion. I can`t beleive you do not see it.<br />Is like say the position of the car driver in an F1 is a kludge. Yuo have to show in both cases that design is bad for a defined "same job" and show another design making that job better in an agreed parameter.<br /><br />In the car case we have t agree if "same job" is street car or F1 car, and then between two designs of F1 car with different driver position we have to agree if the parameter will be, driver vision, aerodinamically advantage, winning races or better vision of the sponsor add. <br />For the laryngeal nerve if you call same job drive the signal from one point to the body of the neuron, and the fastest is the best you will probably be right. But for me same job is provide motor function and sensation to an area of the body to a long neck ruminant mammal. Then we have to find another design to compare an the parameter to compare.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34279717565425907232012-06-15T08:59:19.856-07:002012-06-15T08:59:19.856-07:00Blas: And it is a bad design because ...
It'...<b>Blas</b>: <i>And it is a bad design because ... </i><br /><br />It's evidence of a kludge, because the circuitous route is much less efficient than a direct route.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9768147766979154052012-06-15T04:42:09.699-07:002012-06-15T04:42:09.699-07:00Zachriel said
"Blas: You have to define &quo...Zachriel said<br /><br />"Blas: You have to define "the same job" and compare with another design doing "the same job" and on the basis of a defined performance. <br /><br />That's right."<br /><br />Thanks. <br /><br /><br />"The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx."<br /><br />And it is a bad design because ...Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23617836934118148452012-06-15T04:39:16.822-07:002012-06-15T04:39:16.822-07:00Blas: In a long neck rumminant mammal, that it is ...<b>Blas</b>: <i>In a long neck rumminant mammal, that it is not the same than in an elephant ... </i><br /><br />First of all, that wasn't the question you asked. You asked the function in a giraffe. Furthermore, it is the same in an elephant. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>You have to define "the same job" and compare with another design doing "the same job" and on the basis of a defined performance. </i><br /><br />That's right. The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69493552306070940752012-06-15T04:30:23.941-07:002012-06-15T04:30:23.941-07:00Zachriel said
"The recurrent laryngeal nerve...Zachriel said<br /><br />"The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx."<br /><br />In a long neck rumminant mammal, that it is not the same than in an elephant or a fish. <br /><br />"The question was general. Are you saying there is never an instance where two designs perform the exact same function with one requiring more resources?"<br /><br />Yes, my point is you cannot say " a priori"<br />the one requiring more resources is a bad design as I show you with the car example. You have to define "the same job" and compare with another design doing "the same job" and on the basis of a defined performance.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67008554097740660372012-06-14T16:29:44.836-07:002012-06-14T16:29:44.836-07:00Blas: How do you define "the same job" f...<b>Blas</b>: <i>How do you define "the same job" for the jiraffe laryngeal nerve? </i><br /><br />The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx. <br /><br />The question was general. Are you saying there is never an instance where two designs perform the exact same function with one requiring more resources?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77811479302833568472012-06-14T12:52:25.813-07:002012-06-14T12:52:25.813-07:00Zachriel said
"We have suggested specific qu...Zachriel said<br /><br />"We have suggested specific qualities and provided a clear example."<br /><br />That not make god/dad design objectivly measurable.<br />OT: why you talk in plural? Who are we? Usually the Pope talk in that way. Is your dogmatic side?<br /> <br />"It's not that difficult to understand "exact same job"."<br /><br />car, street car-race car, compact car- luxury car, F1 racing car- NASCAR racing car, F1 racing car fifties regulations, racing car nineties regulations, luxury sport car- limo. <br /><br />How do you define "the same job" for the jiraffe laryngeal nerve?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15508278133343112492012-06-14T10:23:27.472-07:002012-06-14T10:23:27.472-07:00Blas: Of course both have the same purpose, both a...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Of course both have the same purpose, both are cars. </i><br /><br />Though they are both cars, they have different purposes. You are correct that purpose has to be in reference to some standard. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>I cannot believe you do not see the value-ladded of the good/bad design concept. </i><br /><br />We have tried to bridge our differences. "Good" and "bad" are qualitative terms. We have suggested specific qualities and provided a clear example. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>What do you mean by “the exact same job?. </i><br /><br />It's not that difficult to understand "exact same job".Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18722044633841911822012-06-14T06:46:35.725-07:002012-06-14T06:46:35.725-07:00Zachriel said
“They have different purposes.”
I ...Zachriel said<br /><br />“They have different purposes.”<br /><br />I cannot believe you do not see the value-ladded of the good/bad design concept. <br />Of course both have the same purpose, both are cars. <br />But as do not fit your subjectivity you want to specify more the purpose. But then I can say street car, and I will compare a Ferrari or a Porsche with a Fiat compact car or I can say race car and comprar a F1 and NASCAR. And again your criteria for bad design will fail and you will change the purpose to compact car, elegant car, F1 car and NASCAR car, and inside that categories you will find different purposes and objectives that do not fit your criteria.<br /><br />“ You didn't answer this: <br /><br />All else equal, you have two designs that do the exact same job, but one requires twice the materials and twice the energy. Which is the better design?”<br /><br />Don`t you see the subjectivity? What do you mean by “the exact same job?. Do you have a long neck ruminant mammal with a different laryngeal nerve than the jiraffe?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33174498503150005192012-06-13T16:13:53.381-07:002012-06-13T16:13:53.381-07:00Blas: A formula 1 car against a compact car. Which...<b>Blas</b>: <i>A formula 1 car against a compact car. Which is worst design? </i><br /><br />They have different purposes. You didn't answer this: <br /><br />All else equal, you have two designs that do the exact same job, but one requires twice the materials and twice the energy. Which is the better design? <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>You are taking for a given common descent and darwinistic evolution. </i><br /><br />Don't understand your meaning here.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19210175422493071862012-06-13T14:09:24.661-07:002012-06-13T14:09:24.661-07:00Zachriel said
"All else equal, you have two ...Zachriel said<br /><br />"All else equal, you have two designs that do the exact same job, but one requires twice the materials and twice the energy."<br /><br />A formula 1 car against a compact car. Which is worst design?<br /><br /><br />"Ah, so are you now granting that doing the same job more efficiently is a "better" design? Because that wasn't the point you've been arguing."<br /><br />Do not change the subject, my point is that there is no objective measure of good or bad design, always it is value-ladded because you have to establish (subjective) a goal and compare different designs (relative) against it. <br />Also in this case you cannot say laeyngeal nerve is better or worst because you can establish subjectivly a goal, but you do not have another design to compare. <br /><br />"It's true of any incremental adaptive design process, including human design."<br /><br />You are taking for a given common descent and darwinistic evolution.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80661075733596190082012-06-13T13:10:40.790-07:002012-06-13T13:10:40.790-07:00Blas: “The comparative degree of performing the fu...<b>Blas</b>: <i>“The comparative degree of performing the function, efficiency and reliability are objective measures” You said it, “comparative degree of performing” it is not objective measure unless you define a value-ladded standard, and a value ladded goal for efficiency and reliability </i><br /><br />Repeating yourself doesn't make your point better. Let's try a simple example. All else equal, you have two designs that do the exact same job, but one requires twice the materials and twice the energy. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>And the assumption that a simpler, less circuitust laryngeal nerve would be more efficient and do a better jiraffe, for what you donot have any objective evidence. </i><br /><br />Ah, so are you now granting that doing the same job more efficiently is a "better" design? Because that wasn't the point you've been arguing.<br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>This is only true only given common descent. </i><br /><br />It's true of any incremental adaptive design process, including human design.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.com