The problem is that there is no way known that would allow a lung to
evolve, and everything we know about lungs suggests that if it didn't work
perfectly for even a very short while the animal would die. I think that is
a problem with evolution.
>
>Donald Howes << I think there are problems with both theorys, I've been
more of a creation guy because I found problems with the evolution they
were feeding me at school and uni, but I know that there are problems with
the creations theorys as well.>>
>
>So perhaps one should discuss what the problems are and see if others can
help.
>
>Donald Howes: To me at the moment it seems logically impossible for a lung
to get a hole
>in it and have it still work, unless there was a perfectly designed
structure already in place to use that extra hole. So my question now is,
is it possible for any major organ or structure to evolve slowly over time? >>
>
>You already limited 'evolution' to instances in which irreparable damage
is done to the organ. Why should a lung 'get a hole in it' in order for it
to 'evolve' ? You are creating a strawman here.
>
If you think this is a strawman, then show me how a lung could change from
animal to bird types without there being another hole in the lung?!? And
show how this lung could come about at all, if you can't then you are
making a strawman by claiming I was limiting evolution so you don't have to
deal with the problem!
>Donald Howes: ><I know you say that it is, and that there are fossils that
prove it, but do
>they prove it? Or do they show an animal that just has a different
structure? Is a platypus a half way point between a duck and a beaver?>>
>
>Perhaps you should read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
before discussing other 'strawmen' ?
>
I was using this as an example of an animal that is clearly not a "missing
link" and yet has features that are found on two very different types of
animals.
>Donald Howes: <<Can science show anything by itself? Or does there need to
be an understanding from elsewhere to make sence of it? Are there
assumptions that we all make that effect our interpretation of science? If
so are they right or wrong?>>
>
>Such as ? This could be an interesting thought that needs to be finished.
Does there need to be an understanding from elsewhere to make sense of it ?
Are there assumptions that affect our interpretation of science ? Care to
give it a try ?
>
>Donald Howes: <<If we can get an idea of whether or not evolution is
accually possible as process of large scale change, then I think the
science will be meaningful. >>
>
>That is quite limiting I would say. That evolution is possible is quite
obvious since all the data point to this. Are the mechanisms proposed
responsible for the observations ? Or is more needed ?
>
Evolution is possible on a very limited scale, lots of the data points to
that, but there isn't very conclusive data about anything beyond that. One
assumption that you have made is that evolution has happened, now all the
data you look at will be interperated with that in mind. However, there
isn't a piece of evidence that conclusively show that evolution happened on
anything more that simple low level changes.
There are no convincing proofs here, and that's why there is this mailing
list, that's why I think there needs to be an understanding from elsewhere,
because as yet no-one can convince anyone of this sort of thing, if they
already have it in their mind that they are right.
I'm going to lunch.
Donald
---------------------
Donald Howes
Acting Research Systems Co-ordinator
Research Services
University of New England
Australia
---------------------