Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
> My point is that the genetic codes of plants and animals contain a great
> variation and over many generations can produce the kinds of changes
> But these changes are simply different combinations of traits that already
> exist in the creature's genes.
Good points, and Darwin never stipulated 'new' genes. I'm not even sure how
much he knew about genetic constructions. And your point could be used to
support the mechanics of evolution.
> Scientist,Francis Hitching worked on a study of the fruit fly. This
> study of Drosophila extended over 60 years, and the experiments produced
> different mutations. Yet, even mutations produced only that...mutations.
> Never did the fruit fly change into a different insect...or transmutate
> an amphibian. Scientists have tried but never have been successful in
> changing one kind of animal into another. If it can't be replicated.. how
> his theory be valid??
I'm not familiar with the work of Hitching, but remember the most important
premise of Darwin's theory: that the emergence, not of new species, but of
new variations of the old or 'ancestral' forms was a response to changing
environmental conditions. If Hitching did not vary the environments of his
Drosophila, then, no, he would not see anything different other than normal
mutation. But what if he had slowly changed the O-N or O-CO(2) ratio, or
increased the amount of a particular band of light, or any number of things?
The change would have to be slight and over a long period of time (whether
or not 60 years for Drosophilae is 'long enough' in generational terms, I
don't know). Of course, too sudden and too drastic of a change, such as
were brought about by the Ice Age, can wipe out a whole species (in this
case, most but not all of the dinosaurs), and leave only those species
capable of surviving (again, in this case, small mammals).
> I have another quandary, if we look at the Earth's surface, and ask, "What
> necessary for it to support life?" We can agree we need soil made of
> weathered rock, and we need the chemicals that water washes from the
> We need air
> and water. But soil also must contain organic material or matter. And soil
> must have millions of tiny living organisms in it if anything is to grow.
> This poses a difficult problem for those who believe in the slow evolution
> the earth's surface and of living things. Where did the soil that living
> things need in order to exist come from before there were living things to
> fill the soil with organic matter??
Again, this is an over-simplification, assuming that all necessary
conditions must be present for life to spontaneously happen. But in fact it
all evolved into a working system together, undifferentiated at first, then
mutually dependent and finally (still dependent) separate life forms.
> The only possible explanation I have is that the earth did not develop as
> scientists now think. When God created the world, he must of covered the
> continents with soil that was already filled with the living creatures
> Earth must have in order to support life.
> What do you think,Larry?
In general, I think that positing an omniscient, omnipotent power
dangerously explains everything without explaining anything. And, more
damagingly, can blind us to what we can perceive with our own eyes and think
with our own minds.
Thank you for the challenges, Artystyc. Very mind provoking!