Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >>>> There have been some evolutionary experiments that have been done.
> >>>   So, how many fish have they converted into cats like this?
> >>>
> >>>   (I hope you get the point.)
> >
> >> It takes a long time to convert a fish into a cat. So?
> >
> >> How many complete orbits of pluto have been observed? How do you know it
> >> is really orbiting the sun?
> >
> >   Yes, both things are comparable in complexity.
>
> No, of course not. But you haven't expressed why you think creating a
> new species over the course of a few weeks or a few years couldn't
> easily lead to creating a cat out of a fish over the course of a few
> million.

Variations within species can be caused by those capable of interbreeding.
Existing animal types of cat and fish would seem to have no path to evolve
between species. Throwing the cat in the pond will make it mad or drown it,
throwing the fish in the litter box will most certainly kill it.

>All the mechanisms to make it happen are understood,

Are they now? Where can I pick up a copy of "Cat to fish evolution for dummies"?
Breeders can interbreed animals of a species and have done so for several
centuries. But the result is up to chance based on the variations the two
'parent' animals bring to the equation.

> and
> technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and
> non-living environments.

Man writes a computer program and you equate that to biological evolution, why?

>
> What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant
> TB is evolved from earlier TB?

Yes, it is know to exist, but how? Did the TB colony hear "humans have developed
drugs, we must mutate to save ourselves?" Or perhaps the natural variation of
the TB allowed some of it to survive?

> Do you believe that seedless grapes evolved from grapes with seeds?

Not as a normal course, this would have sealed their fate.
What is the offspring of a seedless grape?

> Do you believe that dogs evolved from
> wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)?  Just curious.

Dogs and wolves are of the same species, evolved - no; they are variatons within
the species. Man has found the traits desired and prevented the natural
varibility from being expressed in the domesticated dog.

>
> I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of
> evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence,

Early holders of the theory have promoted it by falsifying drawings. Others now
still tend to obfuscate the issues by saying that observed variation within the
species is somehow proof of variation between species. Others note the gene
similarity between humans and chimps. Some theorize that part of the human gene
split to make the chimp, others think the chimp choromosome merged to make
human.

Experiments have done that create amino acids, "the building blocks of life".
Yet the amino acids created are short-lived under the conditions that
theoretically existed when life began. Beyond the stable creation of amino
acids are the hurdles of organizing them into anything more complex, and then
forming that into cells. Then there is the making of multicelled life.
The issues for more and more complexity seem insurmountable even for millions of
years of experimentation.

> have no alternate
> theory to propose that explains any of the evidence,

An alternate theory is that no species is a decendant from another.
All coexisted at one time but some (obviously) died out. Perhaps each animal has
its own number of chromosomes, neither merged nor split from anothers.

All these increasing complexities must be supported on the life of the amino
acids. But our science suggests that things tend to become less complex, that
is, break down with time. But still some say "That isn't how it happened, that
can't be right."

It sounds crazy that someone would accept naturally occurring increase in
complexity as the conclusion; when the exact opposite is readily observed.

But that would be OK, until they say "The debate is over."

Leef_me


> and still say "I
> don't think it could be right." It just sounds a bit crazy to me.
>
> But that's OK.
>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message