GI

A good, sensible article on evolution;

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology...eb3/baird.html

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

romansh

Not a good sensible argument

Outside of my field, so tough to pick off all the inaccuracies.

But on the infamous eye design argument

our eyes are far from an intelligent design
eg we don't see stationary things (we compensate by continully moving our eyes) I can find you examples, if you are interested.
here's an opinion for you.

http://www.newscientist.com/backpage...mg19726382.600

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

GI

Forget eyes, and think about how self replicating molecules arose, how the lung or wing of a bird could have formed. Forget intelligent design or creationism. Think about the process of RM and NS actually being the mechanism for creating all the complex structures, the difference in classes of animals and indeed the origin of life and you. Add to that the time frame in which this is all supposed to have happened and you will find it is a denial of common sense. The author proposes interesting and feasible alternative for those that have the wisdom to know that they don't know....yet. Why could self replicating molecules, 'blueprints' not have arrived from outer space? And why is the question of where they came from so damn frightening to everybody that they wish to sweep issues under the carpet and put all faith in a weak theory that only explains minor modifictaions to already existing species????????????????????????

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

shadowind

minor modifications over long time could create different things, a plant and a tiger might have the same ancestor. its an acumlative effect, every little small thing adds up, minor differentation is added to minor differentation.

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

GI

Also, you have not considered the article in it's entirety it seems. It does not dispute evolution and genetic mutations necessarily at all. It questions Neo-Darwinism's need for time and chance in it's the mechanism for explaining how the patterns of life emerged. It IS a very good article.

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

GI

Would you care to explain to us how this takes place? We are often just TOLD this happens and that we can't see it because it takes an 'eternity'....it's a nonsense and luckily it is now being questioned seriously by serious thinkers.

I challenge you to detail for example the evolution of either bird lung or bird wing, without just saying this turned into that and that turned into this. Tell us how this takes could happen please!!! I want to know the mechanism.

The reptile lung, with its bidirectional air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its unidirectional flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a creature to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes. The passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose. Reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible.

So, tell me how the the bird wing evolved. I'll start you off with the fact that the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly. So go on, tell me more please......

Consider Exogenesis and stop sweeping issues under the carpet.

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

shadowind

the general theory makes sense to me, i don't know alot about biology and the like,just some general stuff, i guess the devil is in the details, i don't know eveything, wished i did. still the theory makes alot of sense to me, i read up some on the avian lung type, its seems a very efficent way to breath, is it possible that the bird lung type didn't evolve from the bidirectional type, theres more then one way to come about something, theres other ways of gather o2, i would have to study it more, many possiblilitys and i haven't study it in depth. its an intresting thing though, i was unaware of the bird's ablility to constantly have fresh air, its pretty cool.

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

GI

Precellular life must have appeared almost immediately.
There was almost no time for precellular life to evolve into the simplest bacterial cells. Precellular life has never been created in a lab.

Neo-Darwinism cannot explain the origin of life on earth - it just cannot!

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

shadowind

Punctuated equilibrium sounds like an interesting quick search, basicly it seems to say that the speed of change changes, biology and evolution are intresting studys, but theres alot of different animals and plants out there with their own thing, crazy it'll take a few liftimes to study it all.

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

shadowind

read up some on pre-cellular and the time problem, pretty cool

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll