Nobody was talking about fish, what have fish got to do with it? I said
that there is no way know for a lung to evolve from a animal to a bird type
lung. I think that argument is a man made of horse food. Please don't
change the subject, if you can't answer the question, admit it. I'm not
trying to trick you, I just want you to admit that there is a problem with
the theory of evolution when we look at lungs.
>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.
>
Either you have a large step, that involves the entire system changing so
that it still works, or you have small steps where one part of the system
changes at a time. If you can show that it would still be possible to live
without the entire breathing system working, then I confess that this
change would be possible. There may have been intermediates that worked,
but only if there was a large step that change the whole system in one go.
Think about it for a minute, we are talking about changing slowly over
heaps of generations, one small step at a time. If you change one part of a
breathing system, while the rest of the system doesn't recignise it, you
die. It's very simple.
><<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.
>
I don't understand what you think evolution does, I was under the
impression that it took a long time, and that there were no big changes,
just little ones that added up to big ones. To think that at every tiny
step of the way, the lung worked perfectly, in fact better than the last
lot, is absolute nonsence.
>1. Why do steps in evolutionary processes have to be large
>2. Why would intermediate lungs not work
>
Because you can only have one or the other.
>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.
>
If at one stage the air went out one way, and then it started going out
another way, there needs to be an appropriate structure to support this or
the animal will die. If you can show this isn't the case, then please do.
This has nothing to do with my thoughts, it is simple logic.
>
>
>
>>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'.
>
Whether it was damaging or not is irrelevent, it had to change and this is
not possible in small steps.
>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.
>
Because for most major structures in an animal, if you only change one part
at a time, you will have a problem. If you change only small things, this
won't be much of a problem. If it is a structure that is neccesary for
life, then you have a problem.
>
>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.
>
I dont think it is possible for evolution to change major systems in an
animal slowly. One example is the change from an animal lung to a bird
lung. This is a fundamental problem.
>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.
>
>
>
---------------------
Donald Howes
Acting Research Systems Co-ordinator
Research Services
University of New England
Australia
---------------------