|
Amaros -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/14/2006 6:05:16 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Just picking up some points made above....
Someone mentions the eye, the complexity and the apparent purposeful development of which is as perfect an example as you could possibly wish for that Evolution by Natural Selection is untrue.
The eye is one of Behe's examples, and one htat has been refuted. Genes occasionally make extra copies of thenselves - not all mutation is readily apparent - and two independent systems may arise that become inextriciably linked. This was predicted before Behe was even born.
quote:
ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
DNA/RNA "only" need to come into existence and the evolutionary merry go round starts to role, no problem there then ! In fact the molecules are so complicated that it is virtually impossible for them to have developed by chance based mechanisms and when that complexity was revealed pro evos should have immediately realised that their days were numbered.
Not really. Current theory suggests that DNA/RNA evolved in thin films. These things are simply particular combinations of amino acids that form into organic energy proccesors, amino acids redily form under certian conditions such as the conditions that applied when in fact, life on earth began.
These organic compunds readily combine into any number of more complex forms, the laws of physica again, which means that all over the pleant, these compounds were combining, until one occured that was able to proccess energy and metabolate. This is thought to occur more readily in very thin films of moisture, where the posibilities of combination are limited and hence more structured.
The second requirement for life is that such an organic compound be able to reproduce itself - and at the viral stage, what you have is less life than a complex chemical reaction in a cohesive form.
In any case, any organism that metabolises, tends to increase in size and weight - growth - and at some point it will grow to the point that it's structure cannot withstand outside pressure - air pressure, water pressure, whatever, and it will be crushed by it's own weight.
Thus the stressor for cell division: those - or that - primitive organism that evolved to reduce it's mass by splitting became the first true life form.
After that, it's primarily a matter of evolving the traits to survive temperarture changes, etc., expanding into all available niches.
quote:
ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
99.99999% of mutations have DELETERIOUS affects.
True, what's the point? Natural selection is the process whereby the 0.00001 percent of mutations that are not deleterious and the even smaller number that that are actually beneficial, are promoted. This takes time and a lot of organisms, but in the end it's simply a statisitical function: in this case, there was plenty of time and optimal conditions.
If anything, the divine interventionist argument is probobly the most effective when it questions why conditions happened to be so perfect for this process to occur - it's apparently relatively rare, but then in a galaxy comprised of billions of star systems, over billions of years of existence, again, statistical probability argues that it will probobly occur somewhere, at soem time - and here we are.
This is a somewhat more miraculous than a talking bush, IMO, as enchanting as that may sound to you.
quote:
ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Oscillating Universes pose the problem of an infinitude of time. How have we arrived at now from a point in an infinite past.
Come again?
quote:
ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
I repeat the Fossil record does not demonstrate evolution as currently taught and the the argment that it will when more is known goes right back to Darwin !
Cya
In what way does the fossil record not support the theory of natural selection? In the dinosaur record, there are clear examples of scales with featherlike and/or more skinlike properties - even alligator skin is more like skin than scale, and there is little difference in gross overall physical or nervous system morphology between reptiles and mammals, or even avians - it was apparently only those species that had evolved the ability to regulate their body temperature that survived that extinction.
Presumably, the cold blooded reptiles that did survive, were those who had evolved the trait of being able to go into hibernation, perhaps even originally to avoid predation during the breeding season of other species, overpopulation and subsequent resource depletion, adapting to environmental margins, etc., and/or able to buffer temperature changes environmentally, i.e., being partially or fully aquatic.
|
|
|
|
