dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/01/83)
Once I saw a creationist argue against the scientific credibility of evolution by saying that "the odds against hemoglobin being formed by any random combination of amino acids is" [some astronomical number followed]. I know of no similar argument presented by anyone here so far, but I would like to take issue with the argument because I think a lesson is to be learned here. First, I doubt the relevancy of the statement, because I think that large molecules like hemoglobin are built up out of intermediate-sized molecules rather than being built directly out of amino acids. But that's not my main point. The statement assumes that hemoglobin is somehow special; whereas it might be the case that there are a huge number of other *possible* molecules which could perform the same function. The reason this creationist unquestioningly assumed that hemoglobin is special, I believe, is that he holds a *teleological* (goal-directed) view of nature. He can't conceive of hemoglobin (in general, biological facts) not being a necessary and inevitable outcome of evolution, or he can't accept this fact. But the concept of biological developments as having a purpose or goal is not accepted by the theory of evolution! Therefore, its use (implicit or explicit) in an argument against evolution merely begs the question. Now let me address a different argument that does appear in this net. It alleges that the pleasure of sex cannot be explained by evolution. On the contrary, it can be explained quite well in terms of evolution. Pleasure is sought by animals, so pleasurable sex will give them motivation to have sex (more often). Those animals that have sex more often (up to a certain point) will be more likely to pass their genes on to the next generation. End of argument. As to what "the purpose" of sex is, it is (for intelligent humans) whatever we decide it is, that is, whatever we engage in sex for. There is no singular THE PURPOSE of sex, or anything else humans do. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park