More Denton: Darwinism doesn't work (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, May 26, 2015, 13:22 (3469 days ago) @ David Turell

Trying to explain the origin of limbs from fish, feathers from scales and flowers. Flowering plants have no antecedent fossils, shades of the Cambrian. Limbs and feathers cannot be explained by Darwin theory.
> 
> http://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-two&... 
> "Although these small distal bones bear some similarity to tetrapod limbs in terms of function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them [the distal bones of the fin] and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning."
> 
> *****
> 
> "Richard Prum and his colleague Alan Brush, in a landmark article in The Quarterly Review of Biology,28 wrote that:
> 
> "[o]ver the last half of the 20th century, neo-Darwinian approaches to the origin of feathers … have hypothesized a micro-evolutionary and functional continuum between feathers and a hypothesized antecedent structure (usually an elongate scale). Feathers, however, are hierarchically complex assemblages of numerous evolutionary novelties—the feather follicle, tubular feather germ, feather branched structure, interacting differentiated barbules—that have no homolog in any antecedent structures … [Such g]enuine evolutionary novelties are distinct from simple microevolutionary changes in that they are qualitatively or categorically different from any antecedent or homonomous structure."
> -Been saying this for years, but unless you have a PhD, no one listens.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.