Wings

[Mark Walker]

James Adams wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	DR. JAMES ADAMS [SMTP:jadams at carpet.dalton.peachnet.edu]
> Sent:	Wednesday, September 09, 1998 4:27 PM
> To:	leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject:	Wings
> 
> 
> Mark missed Doug's point, I believe.  
> 
	Actually, I believe you are right.  I thought Doug was attempting to
use flightless Leps as an argument for why wings have no purpose.  My
mistake.


> And I am a bit offended by the suggestion that anyone with a bit of 
> intelligence should scoff at the suggestion that natural selection 
> has led to complex structures such as wings.  I, and many other 
> people who probably consider themselves to have at least a semblance 
> of intelligence, consider an evolutionary (natural selective) 
> mechanism to be the best explanation for the presence of wings.
> 
	I apologize for the editorial remark.  I still feel that way, but
I'll be sure and keep it to myself next time.  NOT.  As far as I'm
concerned, the miracle of metamorphosis is just one of many very convincing
evidences of divine purpose, a thing that John Grehan has not embraced -
yet.  I do think it to be a huge stretch to suggest that random mutations
are responsible for this process.  Talk about blind faith!
>   
> There are good examples of intermediate forms in both the fossil 
> history of insects and birds, and these have been extensively 
> discussed in a number of papers.  The discussion is too long to cover 
> fully here, but the gist, as many of you know, is this.  The original 
> "non-functional" or "half-functional" wings probably had a perfectly 
> good use, such as thermoregulation, gliding, etc.  A few mutational 
> steps could have modified the wings into something functional.  Do 
> not take this to mean that I am suggesting that the process was in 
> any way directed or simple.  Just remember that any structure that is 
> in the slightest adaptive, giving even a small selective advantage 
> would persist, and be able to be modified by the creative force that 
> does exist -- mutation.  
> 
	Mutation a "creative force"?  I think not.  A decay of order, a
jumbling of information, a mistake of nature.  Left to its own, the result
would be chaos, an eventual decline of life as we know it.  Isn't this a
scientific position?  Aren't all of the laws of physics in agreement?

> And this of course would not have occured 
> "suddenly" either, as Mark suggests, turning a caterpillar into a 
> butterfly.  Remember that we are talking about millions and millions 
> of years here.
> 
	"We" are not.

	Mark Walker.