Okay, thanks for that feedback. I will attempt to give it a shot.
I am not sure, but I may be getting to the point where you can't teach an old dog new tricks, or maybe it just takes more time for new concepts to sink in. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : snip I suspect that if you gave the theory a chance by reading something in depth about it, you would find your need for any "intervention" along the way unnecessary. Rather than needing to postulate intervention, you may see how often the mechanics of evolution by removal of maladaptive mutations, and an abundance of mutations through unimaginable periods of time, makes it look as if a goal was predetermined. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Now, that is a question worthy of consideration. I find it hard to be a strict evolutionist. I tend to believe there has been some kind of intervention, somewhere along the way, or at various times. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : But a more serious objection to Darwin's natural selection hypothesis (beautifully simple and powerful as the idea is) than weird monsters from our prehistoric past is the prevalence of homosexuality (in humans if not our animal cousins). How can behaviour that is sterile possibly have evolved according to a theory that claims Nature favours acts that increase an organism's chances of sexual reproduction? Anyone want to attempt an answer? A gay man or woman is walking, talking proof that natural selection is either wrong or (more likely) radically incomplete as an explanation of how we got to be the way we are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Survival of the fittest? This is what the original looked like of that fossil just found in China (the Zhenyuanlong suni - a cousin of the better known Velociraptor). But it couldn't fly so those wings are surely (as the tired old cliché has it) about as much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest. Let's see those neo-Darwinians explain this one! Hmm, maybe they were originally for keeping warm and became useful for catching insects or mating displays. Or maybe they just helped it run faster? Feathers are deformed scales so they must have had some sort of advantage early on or they wouldn't have got very far. Don't suppose you'd accept enhanced cuteness as an explanation? If I had a time machine this is the sort of problem I would work on... http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h View on tinyurl.com http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h Preview by Yahoo
