Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mamzelle
The other day I was watching the hummingbirds after the cardinal flowers. The blur of the wings, the angling balance of the tail, the hovering, the fearlessness of humans, moving backwards and downwards like a helicopter...no other bird can do these things. No other bird is so small, or burns so much fuel. So, where's the "in between " bird and hummingbird--? For such differences to emerge, you'd need several "missing links."

Sure and not all missing links will be found. Fossils are rare. Bird fossils are especially rare. But there is recent evidence of hummingbird characteristics in non-hummingbirds in the fossil record:

It's this logical problem that I don't hear addressed, or the question I always ask - how do you evolve an immune system while you're busy trying to evolve a beating heart? And eyes, and the skin...the computer-hormone chemical system that makes an organism's organs all "talk" to one another?

I don't see the problem with different organs evolving in parallel. What would stop eyes evolving at the same time as the heart?

And don't you always need a Mrs. to go with your newly-evolved Mr. Species?

Not if Mr can reproduce asexually.

Why hasn't centuries of breeding livestock, in geographic isolation, not produced a new species of something? If it happens so readily by accident, why can't it be reproduced on purpose?

Why would speciation be more likely to occur in captivity than in the wild? I think the answer is that speciation of animals generally takes a lot of time.

203 posted on 09/26/2005 4:57:39 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]


To: bobdsmith
re: Not if Mr can reproduce asexually.)))

LOL! What a silly remark. Obviously the most interesting, complex, and diversified mammals reproduce sexually, and the theory of evolution and speciation is supposed to account for the existence of sexually-reproducing organisms.

IOW---speak for yourself, Mr. ....

My hummingbird was just an example of the problem of "in betweens"--the most obvious "in between" difficulty is mankind.

re: I don't see the problem with different organs evolving in parallel. What would stop eyes evolving at the same time as the heart?)))

The organism would choke and die while trying on contact lenses. Continually silly...

re: Why would speciation be more likely to occur in captivity than in the wild? I think the answer is that speciation of animals generally takes a lot of time.)))

Evos claim that speciation occurs in the wild. If speciation occurs by accident, it ought to be able to be duplicated on purpose. As for time, domesticated animals have been bred to specfication for thousands of years on separate continents. That is, a laboratory of significant history. You'd think, under ideal conditions, that at least one accident would have happened.

Not enough time, eh? Well, that's the stock answer. Billions and billions of years and it'll happen. All these fortuitious accidents in perfect fortuitous order, and not only that....but parallel fortuitous accidents (the lens of the eye) happening with perfect fortuitous cooperation (the circulatory system)...

It's just too absurd for words.

204 posted on 09/26/2005 7:06:07 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: bobdsmith
And don't you always need a Mrs. to go with your newly-evolved Mr. Species?

Not if Mr can reproduce asexually.

Incomplete answer. Evolution is a phenomenon of populations, not individuals. There is never a first member of a new species looking for a mate,

212 posted on 09/26/2005 8:33:15 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson