Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CottShop
O.K. Maybe a little more.

Lack of evidence for this, assumptions and your ignoring the fact that supposedly evolution ‘creates’ useful things. All the seperate parts of complex systems are useless on their own, and according to Darwinian evolution would have been discarded rather than being kept as baggage while waiting for the right next part to evolve in a billion years or so through the impossible means of microevolution, which as we’ve discussed, only works on organs already present. The information for new organs is also missing and there is no means to gain this genetic information outside of lateral gene transference- but again, lateral gene transference breaks down right from the beginning, because in order to gain more complex NEW information, a species must have already gained their information from a higher species form- see the problem?

Yeah. Sure I do. So did Darwin. He thought through those problems and came up with answers in The Origin. Shifting of function for example. A body part doesn't have to evolve and then sit around waiting millions of years for other parts to evolve. It has some function (or maybe no function IF it is a physiological consequence of something else that DOES have a function) all along. But that function can change. Birds may have had feathers for insulation, for instance, or display, before they were later adpated for flight. The front limbs of their ancestors were certainly, at some point, used exclusively for walking on the ground. But the ancestors of birds developed upright postures and bidpedalism (walking on two legs instead of four) for other reasons. As a consequence of that, however, the front limbs were now available and at hand to perform a different purpose than walking on land.

There are myriad such examples. Nearly every major evolutionary innovation involves functional shifts and recruitment of parts that were present but previously serving some other function.

This is really elementary stuff. If you don't know enough to anticipate and address these kind of points then, frankly, you don't know enough about evolution to effectively critique it.

No it isn’t- where’s the fossil records showing the spinal evolution? All we find are fully formed spinal columns.

O.K. Now you have me confused again. First we were talking about vertebrae specifically. Now suddenly we're talking about the much more general phenomena of a "spinal column". This leaves me without any idea of what you consider a "fully formed spinal column" to be.

So what is it? Is it a notochord with an spinal nerve column but no bone? Is that fully formed or partially formed? What about some fishes were the vertebrae aren't yet vertebrae, but are all in separate pieces just sort of vaguely surrounding the notochord? What about vertebrae that are just small slivers of bone sitting on top of the notochord, serving no function in structural support but serving only as attachment points for muscles?

317 posted on 05/15/2007 6:48:58 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies ]


To: Stultis
That last is a very general problem by the way. Creationists are always throwing out this "fully formed" phrase, and invariably attaching it to phenomena for which many, many stages of complexity, development and variation exist. I've never once heard or read a creationist to explain what "fully formed" actually meant in any particular instance.
319 posted on 05/15/2007 6:55:09 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson