> Evolution wasn't trying to engineer the ribosome. Evolution isn't purposeless. Sure, it is a random process but it has a purpose. And that's of survival of t

> Evolution wasn't trying to engineer the ribosome. Evolution isn't purposeless. Sure, it is a random process but it has a purpose. And that's of survival of the organism (or if you like Dawkins, genes that encode the organism). > The biological forms that have come out of that are completely random. Wow, biological forms are NOT random. They are what they are because of the environment they are habituated in. The exact implementation (animal) may not be deterministic but if you set the right fitness function, evolution will produce what you wanted it to produce. Evolution is like a blind tinkerer who knows he needs to fix but doesn't know where to hit the hammer to fix it. He only gets feedback once he has hit the hammer. From the feedback, he can definitely avoid hitting at the wrong spot again and again. I wouldn't call this process random. My original argument is about engineering macro v/s nano machines. Evolution is great at doing nano work because it is an inside out process. PS: Thousands of moneys _will_ produce a Shakespearean work if their survival depended on it! (Just kidding)