A Usenet persona calling itself Rick wrote:

Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously

YOu keep tossing around this "theory of evolution" as if it is a
single definition of a single law of science. Could you please
post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that
clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that
is widely accepted by the scientific community.


That original statement is completely false. Darwin stated that
organisms evolve to fit the environment in which they live, or they face
extinction. The oceans, for example, are an extremely stable
environment. Sharks will evolve, or go extinct, when the oceans change
in some appreciable way that threatens shark survival. Those offspring
that survive will produce offspring that are more likely to survive in
those new conditions. Most who do not understand evolution make those
broad statements which prove their lack of knowledge.

So, why then do humans, or indeed land-dwelling vertebrates exist? If the
ocean is such a stable environment, why did *any* species leave it to
(theoretically) evolve into land-dwelling creatures? How can you explain the
400 million year non-evolution of sharks while simultaneously subscribing to
the view that all live evolved from the ocean? It's dichotomous and
illogical. Or at least unexplained.

What forced other species from the oceans that did not also force sharks
from it?

Or, is it perhaps that sharks are "intended" to be ocean predators and some
"intelligent design" is at work causing huge and sudden jumps in evolution
that drive species from one comfortable niche to the uncomfortable niche of
"adapt or die?"

If the ocean is a stable place for sharks, Occam's Razor tells us that it
must have been stable for other ocean-dwelling species as well. What then is
the impetus for some species to leave it? Your assertion suggests a
steady-state system were nothing evolves unless there is some biological or
environmental pressure that forces evolution.

But you cannot support this theory without accounting for sharks and why
they are immune from the pressures that drove other species to evolve.

On the other hand, if "evolution" is in reality a series of distinct, sudden
changes in form and function, triggered by some as-yet-unknown mechanism,
rather than a gradual adaptation to environmental pressures, we come to the
question of why those sudden shifts occur. Is it random chance caused by
gamma-ray damage to DNA, or could there be some greater intelligence at
work, one that we cannot detect or quantify?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser