XPost: alt.alien.research, alt.paranormal.crop-circles, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, sci.skeptic   
   From: bob@localhost.localdomain   
      
   On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:02:32 +0000, Lady Chatterly's Nextdoor Neighbor (c)   
   wrote:   
      
   > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:07:47 GMT, "Lady Chatterly's Nextdoor Neighbor (c)"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:50:47 +0000 (UTC), bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby   
   >>D. Bryant) wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, "In my evolving opinion"  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Sounds like a good challenge. First, since you seem to be confident   
   >>>> and knowledgeable, will you answer a question about evolution for me?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> How do complex organ systems such as the nervous system in fish,   
   >>>> evolve when there is no advantage for the incremental steps,   
   >>>> mutations, along the way? And how do organs that have no use without   
   >>>> being connected to a system evolve independently of the system? Or   
   >>>> does the connective tissue evolve coincidentally with the organs to   
   >>>> achieve a working totality and link up again by coincidence of   
   >>>> mutation without advantage?   
   >>>   
   >>>I can't tell you everything you want to know, but I would like to point   
   >>>out that the ancestry of our nervous systems ans sensory organs go way   
   >>>back beyond fish.  I suspect the system is more incremental than your're   
   >>>imagining, and that there were more intermediate benefits than you   
   >>>imagine as well.   
   >>   
   >>Science is perfectly capable of measuring how much human beings have   
   >>allegedly evolved in the past 2,000 years. (the answer is near zero)   
   >>   
   >>Take that and multiply it by many years it would take to evolve an earth   
   >>fish into a human being.   
   >>   
   >>That's a longer time than earth has been here, and of course that time   
   >>has been punctuated with 5 mass extinction.   
   >>   
   >>There is NO WAY possible that human beings on earth evolved from life   
   >>here.   
      
   That assumes evolution is a constant incremental thing. Evidence is that   
   it occurs in spurts. Major changes in a species can take place in a single   
   generation. The `selection' of those changes for dominance depends on how   
   they fit the current survival needs of that species. The more we control   
   our environment, the less `selection' weeds out those without a specific   
   adaptation. Now we have laws to require full access to public places by   
   the handicapped. There was a time in history when they would simply have   
   been eaten by those creatures further up the food chain. The more diverse   
   we become, the more adaptations are retained against the day when planet   
   `Grinder' (Earth) comes up with a scenario we are not prepared for.   
      
   >   
   > Furthemore:  There is not way possible even the fish could have evolved   
   > from lower life forms in that amount of time either!  Simply put, the   
   > age of earth is far too young to have evolved most of the life on it.   
   >   
   > It all must have been created by another sentient species which has   
   > vast, vast knowledge of genetics far, far far beyond our own.   
      
      
      
   x--   100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com   
   x--   3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups   
   x--   Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month   
   x--   UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)