Replies

"Ask your designer. See, that, to me, is one of the innumerable examples of unintelligent design that don't make sense if there's an all-powerful designer. Why am I trying to play basketball on joints that are held together by rubber bands? Why is there a part of my eye I just can't see out of? That's not very good design. But I can understand it as the culmination of a long, long series of engineering compromises and adaptations of old parts to new purposes."

You infer an engineer.

Natural Selection, the cornerstone of Evolution, dictates that species with vulnerabilities be completely eliminated by species without.

Second only to Natural Selection is Random adaptations, this means that, for each good mutation to be tried, an exponentially large number of bad mutations must have been tried also.(within the limits of randomness, order of trial notwithstanding).

Likewise, for any given mediocre mutation, there must be a perfect counter mutation.

And if Natural Selection did not eliminate all but the absolute best, then nothing could have Evolved beyond pond scum.

To say otherwise is to imply a designer.

You infer an engineer.

No, one of the characteristics of a self-adjusting system is that engineering decisions can be made without an engineer or a decider.

Natural Selection, the cornerstone of Evolution, dictates that species with vulnerabilities be completely eliminated by species without.[etc.]

Not at all. "Fittest" is not the same as "perfect."