Ruud Broens a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens a écrit :
: Science is the description in some formal language that, to the best of
: present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and predicting
: observable
: phenomena.
:
: Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific theories
: should not lead to contradictory results. This is where several aspects
: of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not hold.
: For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to account
: for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as the eye:
: from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along that
long,
: long
: trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
: So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it
*cannot*
: be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
:
: Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
: process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
: evolution-driving "force" ?
: My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
: accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
: such complex biological organizations.
: The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
:
: Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information theory
: point of view...
:
: (nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory should
: therefore be adopted
: Rudy
:
Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a notion
of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a driving
force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
from environment to biological entity.

This is the way I was seeing the "propulsing" reaction. ;-)
The most the change is suddain the most the feedback on the survival
biologic entity is fast.

The evolution of the sea fish have been less important than terrestrial
animals because of less drastic and suddain changes.
I am not a specialist and the above is pure speculation.

Rudy