Kim, The same “logic” does not apply to surface dwellers. A partial eye would be extremely useful in an environment where having sight would be a distinct advantage. Being able to perceive shadows and such would be preferable to no sight at all and would be a survival factor. Hence, the eye evolving at least a dozen different times on this planet. Addressing partially formed wings. A common misconception of those that haven’t read Darwin’s theory is to assume that the present utility or function of a particular biologic trait is the reason that trait evolved. There are many instances in the fossil record, particularly in China, where non-avian and avian species had feathers and wing-like structures. These structures were not used for flight. However, these structures were co-opted and did evolve to that capability in some dinosaur species, most notably, birds. By the way, from a cladistic point of view birds are not, merely, related to dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs. As to the overwhelming evidence of evolution and Darwin’s theory of natural selection as a primary driving force of increasing organic complexity there is no dispute in the scientific community. Also, there is no competing scientific theory to my knowledge. If you are aware of one, please, let me know. Darwin’s theory is as robust as any scientific theory we have, much more robust than, say, string theory. The evidence: ecologic, fossil, biochemical, genetic, geographic, taxonomic, etc., all give solid backing to Darwin’s theory. The theory can be falsified. How? As J. B. S. Haldane remarked “rabbit fossils in Devonian strata.” That scenario, simply, does not happen. As to reputable scientists jumping off the Darwin-theory bandwagon, I don’t see it. A challenge: go to your Google search engine (or whatever search engine you prefer) and search for any competing scientific theory (one that is being actively pursued at the present time) regarding evolution of life forms on this planet. Cite 10 articles in scientific peer-reviewed primary literature that address this “new” scientific theoretic construct of evolution. Then type in natural selection or Darwin’s theory of evolution and view the tens-of-thousands of citations in the primary scientific literature related to this theory. In the above challenge for the competing theory I would be impressed if you listed three. Remember, scientific theories, only. I think you will find the scientific evidence “overwhelming” for Darwin’s theory. Hopefully, I did not offend. Also, I’m not addressing the challenges and such directly to you. I mean a “generic” sort of you. End of discussion on this platform. I can feel Patrick glaring at me. Dave On Dec 11, 2010, at 2:11 AM, RON VANDERHULE wrote:
Hold on Kim, your first hunch was correct. To think of all the species you mentioned (and more), factor in the eco-systems spread far and wide, and then assume a theory that utilizes only time, chance, and the extremely rare beneficial mutation to give you a uniform result in all that diversity....well it stretches credibility to the point of transparency. As to the assertion that an eye would be detrimental to those dark cave dwellers because because it is a soft useless glob prone to infection so would be mutated out over time. The same logic applies to surface dwellers. What good is a partially evolved glob (eye) in a mammal, reptile, or insect. It certainly is not a survival factor. The same applies to partially formed wings, or nubs waiting hopeful eons to grow into arms with hands or legs with feet to aid in survival. And as I mentioned last week, try to imagine the quantum leap from asexual to sexual (male and female procreation just to be clear this time). The complexities in that scenario are insurmountable. And then someone mentioned the "overwhelming evidence" for Darwin's theory. Well, the world is still waiting for that. There are reputable scientists jumping off the good ship Beagle all the time. A little imagination is good to have in science but but when it continually becomes your default position you have gone from science to fantasy. Time to get a new theory.
Ron _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com