dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/24/85)
>> They show design [a]. There are no examples of >> half-developed feathers, eyes [b], skin, tubes (arteries, >> veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other >> vital organs. > [Keith Doyle] > Not true. There are ranges of eyes and ears from the very simple to the > complex. There are ranges of houses from the very simple to the complex. But there is no phylogeny. Do you have one for eyes and ears? > Note some reptiles 'hear' vibrations without ears, the use of the > jaw to detect vibrations may explain why early jawbones evolved into the > 'hammer' and 'anvil', thus making the jaw itself an early form of ear. > Simple light sensitive cells could have been an early 'eye'. You can > find many examples of lesser developed organs, intestines, etc. and > if you look at simpler and simpler organisms, you find these structures > simplify to the point that it is not hard to postulate mechanisms > whereby they may have risen naturally. It's not hard to postulate *anything*. The difficulty lies in showing that the postulates are reasonable. I simply cannot understand how you expect anyone who is not already convinced by this line of reasoning to be persuaded by such vague and speculative statements. >> For example, if a limb were to evolve into a >> wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a >> good wing. > Not necessarily. If you look at flying squirrels and the like, you find > that excess folds of skin at their sides are used for gliding. Eventually, > the upper arms could change thru evolution to become more wing-like, if such > flight enhances the organisms capability to survive. This argument boils down to: they "could" evolve, and this is evidence for evolution. It is not possible that you expect the creationist to take this seriously. >> b) ''To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable >> contrivances for adjusting the focus to different >> distances, for admitting different amounts of light, >> and for the correction of spherical and chromatic >> aberration, could have been formed by natural >> selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the >> highest degree.'' [Charles Darwin, THE ORIGIN OF >> SPECIES (The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 175.] > Not when you look at developments from simpler forms. Please do so and report on your results for us. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/31/85)
>>> They show design [a]. There are no examples of >>> half-developed feathers, eyes [b], skin, tubes (arteries, >>> veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other >>> vital organs. > >> [Keith Doyle] >> Not true. There are ranges of eyes and ears from the very simple to the >> complex. > >There are ranges of houses from the very simple to the complex. But >there is no phylogeny. Do you have one for eyes and ears? > >It's not hard to postulate *anything*. The difficulty lies in showing >that the postulates are reasonable. I simply cannot understand how you >expect anyone who is not already convinced by this line of reasoning to >be persuaded by such vague and speculative statements. > >This argument boils down to: they "could" evolve, and this is >evidence for evolution. It is not possible that you expect the >creationist to take this seriously. [DuBois] I'm not saying that the complexity of eyes etc. is particularly good evidence for evolution, just that it is not particularly good evidence of 'design'. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd