Integral writes:
quote:
But how come some developments, for example fins to legs, the circulatory system, internal organs, wings, surely the development of these would have to be instanaeous and perfect to give them any advantage at all, or to even work?
I realize that you're new here, Integral, but this is a common claim that has long since been debunked:
Standard Creationist Rebuttal CB921:
- The assumption made by the claim is false. Structures and organs function quite well when they are not fully developed. Six-year-olds may not have the strength and agility of adults, but their arms, legs, and so forth function well enough to do a great deal.
- "Fully developed" is not even well defined. Human eyes do not have the acuity of hawks, the dark sight ability of owls, the color discrimination of some fish, or the bee's ability to see in ultraviolet (see CB921.1). With so much more potential possible for the human eye, how can one claim that our own eyes are fully developed?
In short, the idea that intermediate formations are worthless is quite clearly false. To take the eye example, if you cannot see anything at all, having just a single photo-sensitive spot that can detect the presence of light (not form or shape or anything like that...just the presence of light) can be an advantage.
The direct answer to your question is that no, none of the things you listed "would have to be instantaneous and perfect to give them any advantage at all, [sic] or to even work." In fact, if we look at life as it currently exists right now, we can see transitional versions of all those things, fins that are only partially like limbs, circulatory systems that aren't complete, internal organs that change, wings that give gliding ability but not flight, all of them are in a middling position, giving a beneficial adaptation over others.
By your logic, humans should be "perfect." If so, why are there any other life forms of any kind at all? Only the "perfect" should survive, right? Well, if we're not perfect, if there is no possible way to define "perfect," why would a wing that doesn't provide flight be somehow less than "perfect"? Who said flight was the goal?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2