Chance and regularity in the development of the fly eye
Submitted by DougBlank on Mon, 2006-03-20 21:27
Today, one of my favorite biologist bloggers pontificates on Conway's Game of Life, agency, and the biologist's job of finding patterns. Pharyngula explores the development of complexity in Chance and regularity in the development of the fly eye. When Pharyngula (PZ Myers) argues against a magical interpretation of the unfolding of events, he is talking to the "intelligent design" proponents who would point to this development and claim that it must be the act of a designer. Of course, that is supernatural and therefore beyind science. But do you find his complete reductionist account satisfying? Is there part of the story missing? Would a science of emergence add anything to this account? Could it?