Donald wrote: <<
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.>>
I have refered you to the webpages which deal with how lungs might have evolved. From fish gills, to lungs. So your statement that there "is no way known that would allow a lung to evolve" is incorrect.
Donald<<
The reason why an intermediate lung would not work is that the whole breathing
system has to work perfectly or the animal will die.>>
So prove that the intermediate steps have to be leading to a non-working lung ? Your argument is based on the idea that an intermediate long could not work. Please prove this.
<<Unless each step in the evolutionary process is a large one involving the entire system, it
can't work.>>
Again an unsupported assertion. Perhaps you should make an effort to first prove your assertions.
1. Why do steps in evolutionary processes have to be large
2. Why would intermediate lungs not work
I wrote:
>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.
>
Donald: 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!>>
Nope. The bird breathes in and out through the same 'hole'. Internally however the air is routed through buffers in a unidirectional way. But the air still flow in and out through the same air pipe after it leaves the lung.
Furthermore you refer to the addition of buffers as 'holes', implying that this would lead to a disfunctional lung yet you have not even shown this to be the case. Your argument is based on your own personal incredulity. It did not work for Denton and it does not work for you either.
>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 ?
>
Donald:
<<If you need another hole, then I guess you have to puncture it.....>>
Do you ? Puncture suggest damage to the lung. Can you show that only through irreparable damage, a lung could have 'evolved' into a bird lung ? Of course not. The only argument you have is that "you could not imagine how it might have happened'.
I wrote: <<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: <<I don't think the data overwhelmingly shows that evolution took place on a
large scale.>>
Then explain the fossil record ? Explain the genetic evidence.
Donald Howes: << 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.>>
Well at least we have established that 1) it is 'to your own knowledge' and 2) that you have no convincing scientific arguments why many small scale changes could not lead to a large change over time.
That was exactly my point. You claim, without support, that small scale changes over time could not lead to large scale changes and you ignore the fossil record and genetic evidence. So all you have is 1) ignorance of evidence 2) lack of evidence.
I wrote:: >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: <<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. >>
Huraah, so we both agree that evolution happened, just not how it happened. Exactly my point.
Donald: <<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.>>
Nope I only look at the available data. Perhaps God did create them time after time and made them match exactly to what evolution would predict. Such a 'theory' can never be proven wrong or right. As such it has little scientific relevance. But in the end, we would both agree that evolution took place, and we are only disagreeing about the mechanism(s).
So now the question is, what theory does explain the evidence better, Darwinism or the appeal to a GOd who conveniently created life as if it evolved. And while we are at it, a far more appealing and supportable theory than God 'did it' would be 'aliens did it'. After all this would require no supernatural forces and would lead to the same end result. Occam's razor makes the latter theory a sure winner over the previous one, although marginally.