[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Mephisto]

The one problem "Natural selection" has as an evolution theory is how to explain how different species came to be.
Take birds for example: Evolution seems to be a slow and linear process. Most probably (but not necessarily) there wasn't a 4-legged-animal and the next breed had wings. So we need to have some steps in between the 4-legged-animal and a flying creature with wings. But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying). As far as I know we still have to find a fossil that shows us such a creature. Note, this does not say that "Natural Selection" isn't working or in effect. It just points out that it has a hard time to explain why, when you optimise your sun watch, you get a digital watch and not an optimised sun watch.

[Andr�s]

I agree that there may be another factor that complements natural selection as amechanism of evolution.
About the evolution of birds, you have example of biped dinosaurs that used their arms for balance and of some that were covered with feathers, then you even have the famous Archaeopteryx.
Yes is uncertain exactly how they achieved flight, but what would be your alternative explanation, intelligent design?

[Andr�s]

Intelligent Design - Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
The one problem "Natural selection" has as an evolution theory is how to explain how different species came to be.
Take birds for example: Evolution seems to be a slow and linear process. Most probably (but not necessarily) there wasn't a 4-legged-animal and the next breed had wings. So we need to have some steps in between the 4-legged-animal and a flying creature with wings. But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying). As far as I know we still have to find a fossil that shows us such a creature. Note, this does not say that "Natural Selection" isn't working or in effect. It just points out that it has a hard time to explain why, when you optimise your sun watch, you get a digital watch and not an optimised sun watch.

That isn't to hard to explain.
Take animals living in trees who are good to jump from tree to tree. For them the step to better gliding and eventually wings would be beneficial.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
The one problem "Natural selection" has as an evolution theory is how to explain how different species came to be.

Here are some example of reptile-bird transtions:
Talk Origins

[Phoenix-D]

"But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying)."

Two words. Flying squirel. That's the sort of intermediate form you'd likely see..glide from tree to tree, climb, repeat. Could be a major advantage depending on what kind of predators were below.

Phoenix-D

[Baron Munchausen]

Well, this is going nowhere but I'll toss out my position one more time before giving up.

The Shattering the Myths of Darwinism page is a summary, not the book. Maybe you should try reading the book before claiming it's full of inaccuracies? You can probably get it at a library like many other books and not have to pay for it. I don't claim that everything the author included in the book is correct. The author does not claim that everything he included in the book is correct. After discovering that evolutionary science was not anywhere near as complete and certain as we are taught in school he sought out the various alternative views offered over the years, many being suppressed by 'orthodox' science, and catalogued them. He is merely reporting what he found. And it's entirely possible that he did not explain some of these things as well as he should have. He is a journalist, not a scientist. He does give a lot of sources you could track down. Again, if you bothered to read the book instead of dismiss the summary.

And so what if those arguments have been used by creationists? The motive of the arguer has no bearing on the validity of the argument. This is the most blatant sort of logical mistake. You see why I don't think the community of believers in 'science' are really rational or scientific?

There are many more books pointing out the flaws of Darwinian theory, btw. It's not just this one. Here are just a couple of the more respectable ones written by 'real' scientists. Admittedly, they aren't easy to find. That's why I pointed to Milton's book first. It's easy to find.

The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar (DeHoff Publications, 1957)

Flaws in the Theory of Evolution by Evan Shute (Craig Press, 1961)

Fyron:

I give up. You flat out deny what I say in the face of proof and deny you are denying. Then you distort what I say and claim I am distorting you. Look at what you quoted. I typed how life came to be how it is, not 'how life came to be'. There it is quoted right over your own distortion, and you went right ahead and chopped off half of the phrase to make it into a different claim. Evolution is not about 'how life came to be how it is'? Then what is it? Isn't Darwin's famous book titled 'The Origin of Species'?

Anyway, I see now why you shouldn't confuse idealogues with facts. I have better things to do.

[ March 16, 2003, 18:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]