Kristine
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (Seversky @ Dec. 31 2011,00:55) | Bruce David (quoted by Cairo's FUBAR)
| Quote | What you are all missing, even you, Dr. Sewell, is that it is not obvious that even with intelligence in the picture a major modification of a complex system is possible one small step at a time if there is a requirement that the system continue to function after each such step.
For example, consider a WWII fighter, say the P51 Mustang. Can you imagine any series of incremental changes that would transform it into a jet fighter, say the F80 and have the plane continue to function after each change? To transform a piston engine fighter in to a jet fighter requires multiple simultaneous changes for it to work–an entirely new type of engine, different engine placement, different location of the wings, different cockpit controls and dials, changes to the electrical system, different placement of the fuel tanks, new air intake systems, different materials to withstand the intense heat of the jet exhaust, etc., etc., etc. You can’t make these changes in a series of small steps and have a plane that works after each step, no matter how much intelligence is input into the process.
Now both a P51 and an F80 are complex devices, but any living organism, from the simplest cell on up to a large multicellular plant or animal, is many orders of magnitude more complex than a fighter plane. If you believe that it is possible to transform a reptile with a bellows lung, solid bones and scales, say, into a bird with a circular flow lung, hollow bones, and feathers by a series of small incremental changes each of which not only results in a functioning organism, but a more “fit” one, then the burden of proof is squrely on your shoulders, because the idea is absurd on the face of it. |
TARDcatz. Argument by analogy. Ur doin' it wrong.
P51 iz machine. Made of metal 'n stuff. Flies fast. Carries gunz. Good for shootin down other planez. Does not make copies of self.
Birdz not machine. Made of featherz n' stuff. Not fly fast. No gunz. Not good for shootin down other planez. (Good to eat, but I digress) Iz makin copies of self.
Argument by anal...annual...an allergy, not fallacy.
Selektive reporting iz. |
I think that I can imagine a series of incremental changes and discoveries that allowed the Wright flyer and the Curtiss pusher to give way to prop engines and finally to jet planes (and no, the Wright flyer does not "change into" any of the later models).
They always use the analogy of one machine/creature changing into another, which is not evolution but a strawman. What is it about "common ancestor" that they do not understand? Do they think that their cousin can give birth to their sibling? 
--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|
