RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Common Descent - Evidence No.1< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Michael Finley

Posts: 19
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2005,10:53   

I would say that the elements under discussion represent engineering solutions more than artistic style and so the comparison is not very appropriate. How could we decide that these particular elements were stylistic rather than purely functional?

For the purposes of my question, the distinction between art and engineering is not relevant. If we use the broader sense of "art," every product of design is an artefact, e.g., a painting and a jet engine are both artefacts. Accordingly, the products of a single engineer will be more similar to each other than to those of another.

Even if we were to consider the designer a pure artist, pure artists can and do work in different media requiring different techniques. So why not a different form of life embodying different mechanisms for one or more of the elements under discussion?

It seems to me that two basically different mechanisms (i.e., structures) performing the same function (e.g., replication) is not analogous to different techniques in different media (e.g., brush and paint, hammer and chisel).

  77 replies since Mar. 30 2005,01:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]