RE: lungs

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:51:01 -0700

Not at all but the fact that I am not able to envision how this could have happened. However that is hardly an argument that it could not have happened. The problem with lungs is that there is little fossil evidence remaining and so our observations are mainly indirect.

----------
From: Donald Howes[SMTP:dhowes@ansc.une.edu.au]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 8:36 PM
To: Pim van Meurs; evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: lungs

Hi,

I am a bit confused now, I take it you know how a lung could change though
a process of small step by step changes, into another type of lung, is that
right? If it is, could you give a hypothetical procedure of that change,
just a few examples of what each couple of steps might have been like? How
about the difference between a bird and a reptile. I confess that I don't
know much about this, so an explanation would be very helpful.

Thanks

Donald

At 08:12 AM 7/08/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bill Payne:
>"Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have
>evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically
>difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance
>of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism
>to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within
>minutes.
>
>Another flawed logic. Argument from personal incredulity is not considered
very convincing.
>
>Bill Payne:
> As Michael Behe (_Darwin's Black Box_) points out, the underlying
>molecular machinery which constructs, coordinates and controls these
>organs of life is infinitely more complex and difficult to imagine
>arising by time plus chance.>>
>
>Sadly enough Behe showed no such thing, other than perhaps his lack of
imagination ?
>
>Bill Payne:
>So we are left with a choice, either we agree with the evolutionists
>that these gaps were *somehow* bridged over time, or we believe that the
>various types of animals were created as distinct groups. Which
>requires the greater faith?>>
>
>The idea that an invisible untouchable Creator has been busy leaving
evidence confusing the people He created or the cold facts themselves?
>
>You have just created a perfect strawman that you very easily could
attack. Luckily real science does not rely on such arguments.
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------
Donald Howes
Acting Research Systems Co-ordinator
Research Services
University of New England
Australia
---------------------