Monday, December 12, 2005
recant
Dammit. this is what happens when you date someone smarter than you. All your pet theories are short-lived. What took me over an hour to write he tore apart in ten seconds by pointing out that what I just posted can't follow because not only do animal populations not increase exponentially they remain the same overall size throughout unless they have room to spread out which most do not. Dammit. Well, I grudgingly sacrifice my theory on the altar of truth. Dammit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Don't forget, however, one of the biggest objections to Darwinism, the problem of irreducible complexity.
Organs are irreducibly complex, i.e., they don't work at all until all of their parts are present. Such an organ could not have developed over time, for each successive little mutation which provides a piece of an eye, provides no benefit to the animal at all. For the pieces do nothing by themselves, and only work if all the other pieces are present as well. So each piece, as it is evolved, provides no advantage and moreover wastes the resources of nutrition in developing. The animal who is in the process of mutating the eye is thus disfavored by natural selection, and therefore dies out. No eye, no macro-evolution.
then why is bob barker concerned about the pet population?
Danny makes a good point, but I think it has been meet by biologists. That is, they deny the premis 'some organs X don't work until they have all of their modern parts'. I have no opinion on this point, but see the otherwise horrendous book 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Dawkins. (I can't believe I am suggesting a Dawkins book.)
Post a Comment