On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:03:59 +0100, Andrew <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On 2008-05-10 01:06:23 +0100, Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
said:
>
(snip)
>
>"Mutation" as such is only a very small part of Darwinian evolution.
>Once a mutation is in the gene pool most of the work of natural
>selection is done by non-mutative variation within a population. The
>only 'tangible' benefit required is that a variation gives one member
>of a species a better chance of surviving than others.
>
Andrew, I quite agree on this, as far as we've taken it, but there is
still that nagging set of questions as to how a creature or clan of
creatures could survive and sustain a very complex and long drawn out
sequence of Darwinian evolutionary changes that didn't produce any
benefits for a very long time and after being passed along through a
large number of generations.
I'm talking about things like the development of eyes in so many
different species. The useful visual properties didn't (couldn't) show
up until the very complex and very extensive series of eye structure
mutations had gone to completion. That would have taken thousands of
generations, and millions of years.
What I'm saying here is, for example, an eye system, complete except
for the lens, would not provide any Darwinian advantages and would not
likely have continued to evolve. The process had to go all the way to
completion before any Darwinian advantages came into play. What
attributes of Darwinian selection kept this process going during those
first generations, long before any benefits could be realized?
Eye development doesn't seem to have had a singular mutation source.
That is, for example, the octopus (phylum mollusca) has eyes that use
specialized skin cells for the retina, with the optic nerve attached
to the back of the retina. Humans and other creatures of the phylum
chordata have eyes that use specialized brain cells for the retina,
and the optic nerve penetrates the retina then attaches to the front
side.
These two eye development Darwinian processes seem to have occurred
independently of each other. There must have been some positive
effects, early on, but what were these positive effects.
Gordon
>
>>
>> What Darwinian selection benefits were instilled early on, by the
>> development of visual sensors (eyes) in so many different species? If
>> we go along with Darwinian natural selection, there had to be some
>> benefits from the git go, so to speak. Why did the mutation process
>> continue when the working eye wasn't available for such very long time
>> after the mutation sequence got under way? Gordon
>
>It doesn't take a fully working eye to create an evolutionary benefit.
>It simply takes an awareness of light by one or member of a population
>the rest of whom are entirely insensitive.
>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then there is that thing of Super String - Membrane Theory and
those
>>>>>> extra dimensions, universes of the multiverse, that fall so
>>>>>> CONVENIENTLY into place with the Biblical information...Multiverse
>>>>>> with other universes...levels of Heaven...rolled up like a scroll
to
>>>>>> less than a Planck length.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gordon
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be cautious about reading the Bible as a science text book.
It isn't.
>>>>>
>> True, the Bible is not a science text book. It was never intended as
>> such, but there is no conflict between the Bible and science.
>>>>>
>>>> The Bible does not "disagree" with the scientific world unless we
fail
>>>> to read it in the light of understanding associated with the modern
>>>> scientific world. Gordon
>>>
>>> I agree, but it should be that way round.
>
|
