Replies

"Why do you expect the directed variations to be obliged to see the future?"

In order to be useful they would have to be. The designer would need to know what to design for. Otherwise, the changes would be indistinguishable from random mutation.

It is strange what you are saying. Let me give the example - the new toxin enters the environment so:

Then the new generation of organisms get their DNA modified accordingly to provide the resistance and different species share the solutions.

Or random process of mutations has to take place until some lucky organisms gets it and than the descendants of this one organism are lucky to survive and take over. Other species have to do the same or die out.

Which is more efficient? Why the more efficient way would be prevented from being the norm? Mind you - this did not require knowing the future!

" Let me give the example - the new toxin enters the environment so:

Then the new generation of organisms get their DNA modified accordingly to provide the resistance and different species share the solutions."

That's not what happens. The mutations are ALREADY there; those that have the right one will have resistance. Those that don't will die. There won't BE another generation if you dont have the mutation already. If some unknowable *designer* is going to change the DNA of the next generation after the toxin is introduced, it will be a generation too late.

" Which is more efficient?"

Random mutation plus selection.

"Mind you - this did not require knowing the future!"

Yes it did, because the example you used would not work. The designer has to put the resistance gene in BEFORE the toxin enters the environment.