Ruud Broens a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens a écrit :
: "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...
:
: I guess you mean : is coded by the DNA in the chromosomes.
:
: What do we know about all the "useless" coded informations ?
: Could we imagine that it can be quickly (re)activated in case of brutal
: changes ?

The process of celldivision in the so-called eukaryot celltype has a
remarkable
simularity between all sorts of species. This has led to the conclusion, that
this mechanism has remained virtually unchanged for at least a billion years!
Mutation of the genetic code takes place all the time, under various
influences
from both within and external to the biological entity. For certain 'core'
mechanisms, such as division, there are very effective corrective mechanisms.
Just as you will find ice in a glass of hot water being present
in a perfectly healthy body, cancercells are present - luckily, the
'countermeasure department' is quite efficient :-)

Hey, that's not fair... Wait for me ! ;-)