Replies

Diode,

You misunderstood the entire discussion obviously.

G3K claimed that there was either one or the other, Dan Day has given him examples of a number of in betweens that makes the argument that G3K stated as false.

The fact that such in between systems such as this exist, menas that it is NOT that big a leap to see how a system such as the Human system evolved in the first place.

It is NOT at all IMPOSSIBLE as G3K claims.

The fact that there are many in between systems makes it that much more likely that that is indeed what occurred, it is NOT impossible, but most probable.

That was the point, if you missed it, it was either because you ignored it, or just don't want to accept that fact that such stages make it indeed possible for our system to have EVOLVED. Oh no, NOT THAT!!!

The fact that such in between systems such as this exist, menas that it is NOT that big a leap >

Those in between systems are also highly complex and require explanation which of course has not been given. The transformation of an entire reproductive system in any way is completely dubious because it has to work at every single point in the transformation and all parts have to be interrelated at every single point in the transformation and work together at all times. This is impossible to any reasonable human being but then, I have never accused evolutionists of being reasonable.

I fully understand the context of these posts. Look, the Theory of Evolution is very creative (pun intended) idea devised by highly intelligent minds comparing anatomic features between various species, both living and extinct. The years of collecting data, making comparisons, disproving the null hypothesis, minimizing bias, statistical analyses, and finally wading through the peer-review process is laborious work. And all for a single data point.

Ah, but connecting these points is fairly easy, and I might add, open to debate. A creative mind, artistic flare and a rudimentary knowledge of biological sciences is about all that is required to understand the theory. Anyone who played "one of these things is not like the other..." can grasp it. It seems so satisfying. It appears to make teleologic sense. It is seductive. It can be skethced out on a peice of paper while sitting in in the drawing room on a comfortable oxblood chair. "We can easily get there from here."

Can we really? Mutation is lethal nearly every time its tried. Would not an incremental accumulation of hypothetically beneficial mutations pose an even geometrically greater satistical challenge? Are environmental pressures patient enough to allow an organism "to get there from here?" Can the fossil record be interpreted in another way?

Since historical events cannot be directly tested using classical scientific methodology, I view the Theory as another speculative discipline, like psychology and the social sciences (no disrespect intended). However, unlike these areas of study, defenders of evolutionary dogma seem to have a particular disdain for alternative points of view. Regards.