Donald Howes:<< 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.>>
There are several problems in your argument. 1) You suggest there is no way known that would allow a lung to evolve. That is incorrect. What you perhaps mean to say here is that there is no way known to you. But others have speculated on the evolution of the lung. You might disagree with the mechanism and the evidence or reasoning. But you should not make a statement which can so easily be disproven 2) You seem to be under the impression that intermediate steps are disfunctional. I'd suggest that the problems lie far more with your arguments than with evolution. Why would an intermediate lung not work ?
<<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.>>
Donald Howes: 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!>>
Perhaps I should first hear the 'arguments' behind your strawman. Please explain why a lung required a 'hole' in the lung. Your argument is one that might be reasonable but you have failed to show that the lung would have to be punctured. If your argument is that I do not understand all the steps fully, then you have a point. But all this does is show lack in my understanding of the mechanisms involved. Does this mean that therefor evolution is impossible or that evolution of the lung is impossible ? Of course not.
You have come up with the unsupported argument that evolution of the lung would necessitate a puncturing of the lung. Perhaps you should make an effort to support this ? Is puncturing of the lung required ?
<<Perhaps you should read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.htmlbefore discussing other 'strawmen' ?>>
Donald Howes: 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.>>
Yes and the strawman argument is the suggestion that this is a 'missing link'. Read the article.
<<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 ?>>
Donald Howes <<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.>>
You are making some interesting assertions. While data overwhelmingly show that evolution took place on a very large scale you suggest that evolution is possible only on a very limited scale. Please explain ? And why should evolution of small scales not eventually become evolution of larger scales ? What mechanism(s) prevent this ? Furthermore there are very conclusive data that evolution happened. The question remains, what mechanism was involved.
Donald Howes: 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. >>
Once again this is incorrect. For instance the fossil record shows very clearly that over time life evolved from the most simple life forms to the life forms we know today. Genetic data show support for the observations in the fossils. So indeed, the data is there and it is undeniable that it happened, the question remains, how did it happen.
Donald Howes: <<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.>>
Convincing is a subjective word. But we agree indeed that it is too bad that people ignore the data in favour of their own 'beliefs'.