"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: 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.
:
:
Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...

A 'souped up' version of Lamarck's theory ?
Rudy