Re: Pasteur and nature of science

From: Bill Payne (bpayne15@juno.com)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 22:46:02 EST

  • Next message: 89702422@bigcashtoday.com: "*****ADVERTISE TO 12 MILLION PEOPLE FREE!"

    On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:39:51 -0500 george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
    writes:

    > I'll repeat the point that I made at the beginning & which has not been
    refuted: Evolution
    > does not involve increase in complexity as a matter of definition.

    That should not be refuted; I agree, as a matter of definition. But if
    there is not a generally increasing vector of complexity, with only minor
    countercurrents, then the theory fails to explain how we got here.

    Bill

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 08 2002 - 22:54:37 EST