This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 10 October 2021. The result of the discussion was retarget. |
I fail to see how the example that was removed is conceivably an argument for or against Intelligent Design. The only possible argument I can make is the use of the word design in quotes. That Intelligent Design itself makes provision for micro-evolution (last I heard anyways) seems to counteract even this idea, and the removal seems overzealous and only serves to reduce the information content of the article.
Of course, a better wording of the example is probably an even better idea.
Intelmole 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Saying that "there are no choices in biology" ignores biodiversity - there are PLENTY of different choices. Logically superior examples do exist - a dog can see better in the dark because their vision is better adapted to this. So you would think that, for equal cost in terms of maintenance and energy demands, the human eye would move towards this (or an equivalent design) through millennia of evolution. One reason it doesn't is that a series of intermediary steps must be performed, which would lead any individual making this transition less able to transfer those characteristics, and thus few children born through any individual go on to procreate, thus eventually the transitional design is removed from the population. Sounds like a perfect example of the effect to me - switching doesn't work for an individual, therefore it is not adopted by the community. 82.45.87.151 03:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)