Re: uhh? why not evolution?

Russell Stewart (diamond@rt66.com)
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:30:16 -0600

At 11:15 AM 6/12/97 -0600, you wrote:
>---russell---
> Exactly how obvious is the statement that evolution is both
>a fact and a theory?

Obvious enough that one can learn it from moderate studying of the scientific
literature.

>Is it obvious that the most complex 'thing' that we
>know of(us) got here through random mutations?

Not obvious at all -- that's why it took thousands of years for us to
discover that.

>Did you fail to listen to
>our astronomer friends when talking about this subject?

No, I've heard the "argument from Fred Hoyle" before, and I know that it
is based on too many assumptions.

>I ive said before,
>evolution of the kind that causes new cells, tissues and organs to form has
>never been seen.

I don't know if it has or hasn't, but I don't see that that is necessary.
There is still plenty of supporting evidence for evolution.

>Obvious? Don't think so. Do we experience these types
>of transformations(or even have in the past 1000's of years) like we have
>experienced gravity?

Of course not. It takes more than a few thousand years for a significant
amount of evolution to take place. That's why we have to look at the
fossil record to tell us what has really been going on.

>please reply at the end or top of my statements---please do not break them
>up, thank you

Sorry, but it's easier for me to break them up and respond to them one
at a time.

_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|

2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.