Posted on 09/08/2003 4:58:18 PM PDT by bondserv
I guess you know the facts, fill us in.
Did your college class create an eye in a Petri dish? Maybe you are just making a few assumptions that they forgot to teach you.:-)< /sarcasm >
But seriously, as we discover how complex the inner workings of the cell are, we need to pause and determine if a 150-year-old process needs a serious checkup. Pulling teeth in the science community doesn't come easy.
When the nerve of the community finally dies, we might see more scientists choosing to get an evolutionary "root canal".
Surely you can glean many questions from my post. As a starter, why don't we have millions of chemicals in our bodies just waiting for evolution to use them?
He would need to gain some weight to get a horse down. ;-)
I've got horses in my backyard too.
Evolution states that there is variation and that some of the variation is adaptive and some is not, depending upon the demands of the environment at any given point in time. Adaptive variations tends to survive and non-adaptive do not. Those with adaptive variation tend to propagate such adaptations, because those who do not don't survive. The direction this all takes depends upon the selective pressures in the environment--not upon what we human beings think is a proper or reasonable direction. That the comlexity of it all overhwelms you is not evidence that there is an "intelligent" designer.
There would seem to be a niche for long-winded predators with legs as long as horses.
And this does not address my other problems mentioned above.
--Boris
Because in mother nature you do not get to define the destinations.
I think it's a pretty good question. On the planet, there is one animal who principally survives on the basis of intelligence. Scientists say whales are intelligent. But why is that? And what do they do with their intelligence? Chimps are smart (in a way). But where does it get them?
Intelligence is clearly better than fast legs or sharp claws. Yet, in billions of years, only one animal has evolved intelligence in a way that ensures replication of its genes.
There's something special about Man, I think.
We do.
Check out progesterone and its various--disparate uses--throughout the various species.
As mentioned above, eyes have evolved separately many times. It's good to see.
Echolocation evolved separately in the sea and in (e.g.) bats. It's good to hear.
Flight has evolved in mammals, birds, and fish. It's good to fly.
Color vision evolved in insects and fish. Plants evolved brilliant colors to advertise to insects. It is thought that very few mammals have full color vision: then why does Man prove to be the exception?
I agree.
But why wouldn't we go where the evidence leads us, rather than trying to perpetuate an untenable mess that continues to be more and more unlikely.
Small adaptations don’t necessarily lead to trans-species evolution. Common descent could easily be interpreted common designer. A few matching genetic errors could mean a short term exposure to the same mutating mechanisms...
I agree, and evolution does not detract from that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.