I personally will stay out of the religious side of this argument,
having been flamed for standing up for any religious stand point on this
list.
However, I just finished my two bio classes for my CS degree. It is
interesting that you mention this lightening theory. My bio book (sorry
no references and no quotes, maybe later) stated that many people
(60's-80's) have tried very hard to duplicate and find conditions
whereby simple molecules could even form basic RNA or other such
biological/organic compounds. They had some very minimal success. In
the end it was concluded that the methods they were trying probably
would never have created RNA and other such things that may have
assembled a cell. Some of these tests were based on this lightening
theory.
Maybe such spontaneous life could have happened another way... I don't
really know.
As for software evolution. I would have to weigh in with my opinion
being somewhere between Linus and many others. Software does evolve.
Just about any human project does. This is one reason why there are
"versions", "editions", etc. You can only design so much. Then you go
back and evolve it. Is Linus right that there was nearly no design?? I
think he would know best about the earliest roots of Linux. However, I
think he is wrong that now there is no design (though there may be no
master plan, which would mean it is controlled evolution more than
engineered/designed).
Anyway, I will sink back into silence for now.
Trever Adams
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/