A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of human
beings.

Why should they be?

Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have
produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea.

That's _your_ fantasy about evolution, not any
theory that exists in the scientific community.

Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact.

There is _nothing_
in the scientific realm that insists on a monotonic, continuous
variation in species evolution.

And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual variation which
drives evolution. What is it, pray tell?


If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history.

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...


If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes

And if it doesn't cause gradual changes? You are the one
that insists on change being gradual, not the scientific
community.

So, if it's not gradual, it's sudden, right?

Some
paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but
the overlap is speculative at this point.

Nothing speculative at all. They are known to have co-existed. The
timeframes of overlap are in tens of thousands of years. Tools from
both species are found in the same sites in the same timeframe.


But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable changes.

If the change is in soft tissue, how is that to be found? Morphology
isn't evolution and it isn't biology nor genetics. It is one aspect
of biology.

One would expect gross morphological changes to be more than "skin deep."


Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution.

Your assumption. You don't know whether the change required an evolutionary
change in, say, brain function, that would allow for an iguana to swim and
feed underwater.

But they DO swim and feed underwater, and I doubt that their brains are
grossly morphologically different from land iguanas. Can you demonstrate
that marine iguanas are an evolutionary change rather than a simple
behavioral adaptation based on the particular needs associated with the
Galapagos ecosystem?



For marine
iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful evolution that
would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the development of
a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that permits sharks
to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the lines of

YOur fantasies. The scientific community does not dictate what constitutes
a minimal requirement for the real world in order to consider it to be
evolution.

Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue.


Even if the theory of evolution is true,

Which theory of evolution? You claimed you can't identify it.

Any theory of evolution.


Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of
God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one
believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed.

And who, in this discussion, has suggested that?

Nice backpedal. You did. To wit:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly does not
prove the existence of God.

A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.


--
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