ext_121848 ([identity profile] phen0type.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] richard 2007-09-21 01:16 pm (UTC)

You seem to be expressing yourself rather well.

I do not think that such forms can survive either. That is actually the point - if such creatures were born, they would not survive and pass their genes on to other individuals. Such creatures' survival would be a good disproof of evolution, not a confirmation of it. I think that we can agree here.

These things would have probably come about gradually, and through simpler forms. There wouldn't be any way for them to exist separately - evolution has never claimed that. That isn't an argument for any form of intelligent design, either; rather, it is an argument for the sort of slow, adaptive change that would allow such a thing. I'll link you to a few examples that illustrate my point well. The examples include that of the bombardier beetle, which already had a chemical mechanism in place that evolved further in order to protect themselves, and a means by which to do it. All those changes were gradual and were not as impossible as they seemed. Here is a more detailed discussion of the bombardier beetle: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

The eye's humour does not 'just happen' to have a proper reflective index. It just appears that way because we have not seen it evolve in ourselves. It is the result of millions of years' worth of natural selection that caused its mechanism to become more refined.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting