Stephen Jones replied:
>Well if there is no "evidence" of it, why *should* I believe it? But
>I really have no problem with it, either way.
>
>OTOH I presume your response confirms that in fact "there is no direct
>evidence" that "small changes in the genetic composition eventually
>leads to major morphological change"? If that is the case, why do you
>criticise "Christians" for their "reluctance..to disbelieve" it? <g>
I would not agree with ignoring things for which there is no direct evidence.
There is evidence for line of sight motion in the galaxies but no measurable
motion in the radial direction. I firmly believe that they are in orbit
around the other galaxies. So, I believe in indirect evidence and so can
freely criticize those who say that only what we directly observe can be
believed. In the US now we are having a trial with a famous sports figure.
No one directly observed him killing his ex-wife and her friend. If only
things that we can directly observe can be counted as real, then this guy is
sure to get off!
Shoot, if I can only believe things I directly observe, then it is patently
obvious to me that I can not believe in your existence. I have never
observed you. Nor has anyone I know observed you and you have not been
written up in a scientific journal. :-)
glenn