Donald: <<Nobody was talking about fish, what have fish got to do with it? I said
that there is no way know for a lung to evolve from a animal to a bird type
lung. >>
Ah, we are merely talking about fish lungs here. Again your statement is incorrect.
Donald: <<I think that argument is a man made of horse food. Please don't change the subject, if you can't answer the question, admit it. I'm not trying to trick you, I just want you to admit that there is a problem with the theory of evolution when we look at lungs.>>
In order for me to do that you first have to show that there is a problem. You have yet to do so. You have so far stated that YOU believe that there is a problem and that YOU could not imagine how it happened. But all this shows is perhaps problems with your imagination or understanding. It does not necessarily mean that since you cannot imagine it, it is therefor false. Could the sun not function when people could not imagine how it was fueled ? If you can show the problem and show that the problem is unsurmountable for evolution then you have a valid argument. But all we have now is a statement that no way is known for a long to evolve into a bird type lung. But all that could show is 1) our understanding of lung evolution is lacking, after all there is little evolutionary evidence left over 2) your understanding of what is known about lung evolution is lacking. Neither one would form an unsurmountable problem for evolution. In many sciences details about certain mechanisms are lac
king, that however does not necessarily form a problem for the validity or invalidity of the science in question.
>
>So prove that the intermediate steps have to be leading to a non-working
lung ? Your argument is based on the idea that an intermediate long could
not work. Please prove this.
>
Donald: <<Either you have a large step, that involves the entire system changing so that it still works, or you have small steps where one part of the system changes at a time. If you can show that it would still be possible to live without the entire breathing system working, then I confess that this
change would be possible. >
You are once again making the unsupported assumption that 'the entire breathing system did not work'. That is as much of a strawman argument as the one against feathers. You have to show that the intermediate steps could not have worked. Your argument suggests that you have done so, or otherwise you would not have made the statements you have made. But when asked all you come up with is "I cannot imagine how it happened' and 'since you can't either' evolution must be false. That is a very poor form of argument.
Donald: <<There may have been intermediates that worked, but only if there was a large step that change the whole system in one go. >>
Again an unsupported assumption. Proof by assertion has never been a valid form of logic.
Donald: <<Think about it for a minute, we are talking about changing slowly over heaps of generations, one small step at a time. If you change one part of a breathing system, while the rest of the system doesn't recignise it, you die. It's very simple.>>
Is it ? Again you have failed to show this. Why would a small step lead to the death of the organism ? We know that people can live with one lung for instance. That is far bigger of a step than you say is impossible. So where did your argument go wrong ? I'd suggest in the assumption that small changes are necessarily detrimental.
><<Unless each step in the evolutionary process is a large one involving the entire system, it
>can't work.>>
>Again an unsupported assertion. Perhaps you should make an effort to first
prove your assertions.
>
Donald: <<I don't understand what you think evolution does, I was under the impression that it took a long time, and that there were no big changes, just little ones that added up to big ones. To think that at every tiny step of the way, the lung worked perfectly, in fact better than the last lot, is absolute nonsence.>>
Again proof by assertion is neither scientific nor convincing. That it is nonsense to you is hardly evidence that is truely is such. If you have evidence that the lung under such small changes must have stopped working then I suggest you provide us with this evidence. Rather than presume should you not prove this to be the case ?
>1. Why do steps in evolutionary processes have to be large
>2. Why would intermediate lungs not work
>
Donald: <<Because you can only have one or the other.>>
Another assumption that lack evidence. Your circular arguments are only overshadowed by your use of personal incredulence.
Donald:
<<If at one stage the air went out one way, and then it started going out another way, there needs to be an appropriate structure to support this or the animal will die. If you can show this isn't the case, then please do. This has nothing to do with my thoughts, it is simple logic.>>
Sure at one time the flow will need to have changed (perhaps through an intermediate step), but your argument is that this could never have happened. However you fail to provide evidence supporting this. Perhaps your only argument is that you and I do not fully understand the mechanisms. And perhaps, just for argument's sake, nobody else does either. But does this prove that evolution is wrong ? Of course not. Or I could use the same argument about God. Is it not said that nobody knows God's ways. As such we do not (fully) understand Him, therefor he could not exist. Or let's stick to science and not faith and address gravity. While we understand its properties we do not fully understand its causes. And yet we do not suddenly float into outer space when we have come to that conclusion.
>Do you ? Puncture suggest damage to the lung. Can you show that only
through irreparable damage, a lung could have 'evolved' into a bird lung ?
Of course not. The only argument you have is that "you could not imagine
how it might have happened'.
>
Donald: <<Whether it was damaging or not is irrelevent, it had to change and this is not possible in small steps.>>
Proof by assertion. Please show that this is the case. I bet all you can respond is, well show me the steps. But that argument is based on the logical fallacy that if you and I do not know, that therefor it could not be true.
>Well at least we have established that 1) it is 'to your own knowledge'
and 2) that you have no convincing scientific arguments why many small
scale changes could not lead to a large change over time.
>
Donald: <<Because for most major structures in an animal, if you only change one part at a time, you will have a problem. If you change only small things, this won't be much of a problem. If it is a structure that is neccesary for life, then you have a problem.>>
So I am glad that when small things change there will be not much of a problem. So why do you believe that you have a problem when it is needed for life ? After all that suggests that the change is affecting the organism in a negative manner. As such the organism will die. But if the change is neutral, or positive or even slightly negative but not enough to kill then the organism could survive. So why focus on only those changes which cause death ? That is like focusing on mutuations and say that since most of them cause negative effects that no positive mutations are possible. Yet that is what you are doing here. You are claiming without proof that small changes are necessarily negative.
And yet you fail to provide evidence for this. You might be right but that would require more than a statement from personal disbelief/belief.
>Donald: <<The data may show that at one stage there were simple creatures,
and now there are complex creatures, but it does not show how it happened. >>
>Huraah, so we both agree that evolution happened, just not how it
happened. Exactly my point.
Donald: <<I dont think it is possible for evolution to change major systems in an animal slowly. One example is the change from an animal lung to a bird lung. This is a fundamental problem.>>
So you don't believe this but how is this going to prove or disprove your point ? You have provided no evidence supporting your views and when confronted with this you are unable to support your ideas with evidence.
Btw what about the aliens having planted the animals on our planet and reseeding it slowly over time. A far better explanation than the use of a supernatural force, would you not agree ?