You say that I am so easily disproven, and yet you have no proof! Please
show us what these people have speculated so we can comment on it. The
reason why an intermediate lung would not work is that the whole breathing
system has to work perfectly or the animal will die. Unless each step in
the evolutionary process is a large one involving the entire system, it
can't work. This is not normal evolution, in fact it would seem like a
miracle. Please show us how an intermediate step could be funtional, or
show how my arguments are faulted, instead of just saying so with no basis
for your statements.
> <<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.
>
Ok, this one isn't to difficult. In an animal lung has only one hole, that
it breathes in and out of, and a bird breathes in one hole and out another!
That mean that somewhere along the way it must get an extra hole!
>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 ?
>
If you need another hole, then I guess you have to puncture it.....
><<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.
>
I don't think the data overwhelmingly shows that evolution took place on a
large scale. The mechanisms that make small scale changes have only been
seen to make small scale changes, therefore we can't conclude they also
made large scale changes, and, to my knowledge, it is not possible to for
these mechanisms to make large scale changes. If you think otherwise, then
please show us how this works.
>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.
>
The data may show that at one stage there were simple creatures, and now
there are complex creatures, but it does not show how it happened. There is
nothing there that shows that they evolved, only that there are different
types of creatures now than then, it could equally mean that God created
the animals slowly, putting animals here in steps. This is only evidence if
you already assume evolution to be true.
>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'.
>
---------------------
Donald Howes
Acting Research Systems Co-ordinator
Research Services
University of New England
Australia
---------------------