Re: [Phys-l] Another alternative theory horror

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 02/09/2008 08:55 PM, Steve Clark wrote:

> I asked a question which wasn't answered 

It was answered.

> - "because it works so well"  didn't answer my question. 

You may not like the answer, but it remains the right
answer.  The other part of the answer, as previously
stated, is that the observed biology makes sense in terms
of evolution and not otherwise.

If you want a more detailed answer, ask a more detailed 
question.

> And, while evolution seems like a simple  
> theory, the mechanism that leads to new species is anything but  
> simple. I struggle with many of the explanations that I hear. How did  
> amphibians become reptiles. A lot of changing has to happen.

That's a new question.

The answer is that things change one mutation at a time.
It's like asking how could Beethoven possibly have written
the 9th symphony.  The answer is, one note at a time.

For the next level of detail on the relationship of reptiles
to amphibians, see
  http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

> We don't teach evolution because there is a mountain of evidence that  
> makes sense in terms of evolution and nothing else. We teach it  
> because it's on "the test". 

Which leave us with the question, why is it on the test?
Again the answer is, because it works so well.  The observed
biology makes sense in terms of evolution and not otherwise.

> It might make them better biologists, but probably not better engineers.

A very great part of engineering in the 21st century will be 
bio-engineering.