Just a few questions...

Are you saying that there was a time when only wind-pollenated plants existed? Could you help us verify this? Are you sure this is the way it happened? Or, would it be better to say that most scientists believe it happened approximately like this? If you are sure, then could you provide us with the evidences that make you, and perhaps others, so certain? Just out of curiousity, what were the first creatures with lungs? Could you provide a few examples?--Jason

Are you saying that there was a time when only wind-pollenated plants existed? Could you help us verify this? Are you sure this is the way it happened? Or, would it be better to say that most scientists believe it happened approximately like this? Could you provide us with the evidences that make you certain (or to believe) that the above scenario is the reasonable one? Just out of curiousity, what were the first creatures with lungs? Could you provide a few examples?--Jason

Hi nwr, Heh. I'm not as argumentative as I sounded (I think). I actually meant, "Are you certain that the wind-pollenated plants preceded the insect-pollenated plants?" Well, you not only cleared up the fuzziness of it all, but you also answered the question as well.Now that we've got that cleared up (), would you mind sharing a few examples of what you consider evidence for your position that wind-pollenated plants preceded insect-pollenated plants?I'll have to read the co-evolution link to comment on that, which I intend to do.Regarding my question of which creatures were first to possess lungs, you answer (understandably tentatively) "lungfish."My next question, then, would be, "Are lung-fish the predecessors to amphibians? If not, then what are the predecessors to amphibians?"--Jason

why does the number of "letters" (bases) invalidate the analogy?There are many coding systems with varying numbers of symbols. Computer machine language uses only two: 0 and 1. Yet, eventually, all computer programs -- no matter the logic, thought, complexity, intelligence, and meaning of the programs -- get reduced to series of 0s and 1s.I really dont see how the number of coding objects (symbols, electrical impulses/non-impulses, bases, etc.) in any particular coding system prevents comparison among coding systems.--Jason

hi nwr, Okay. Okay. I've got a book on lawn care. It's got a paragraph or two on grasses evolving over millions of years (sigh). But it doesn't support that assertion at all. Just states it like we've all seen grasses evolving over millions of years.But can you point to some authoritative information that supports the assertion that gymnosperms are older than angiosperms? It's a conclusion -- not something we can directly observe. How was the conclusion reached?The fact that lots of books about plants make the assertion is not particularly convincing to a skeptic like me.

Ned, I hope Enuf understands this point. Almost ALL creatures have DNA codes based on the same "language"...i.e., combinations of the four bases.Therefore, the "grammar" or whatever is the same, creature to creature.Mutation is NOT changing the kinds of letters or the grammar. It is changing the ORDER of the letters (the four bases, which are in any DNA code)...to make different meanings (body structures) or nonsense (useless/lethal mutations). OTOH, He most certainly could use the same language.AbE: For instance, all different kinds of software are compiled into the same binary format.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-19-2005 01:31 AM

I misunderstood your point, Lam.Yes, Enuf's example regarding English and Chinese or whatever has no bearing on any of the discussion. I'm not really sure what he was trying to get across with that, but whatever the point was...the English vs. Chinese example is probably improper.AbE: I think I thought you were saying that comparing DNA to a languae, like English, is faulty because English has 26 letters in its code system while DNA has only 4.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-19-2005 03:54 AM