No it hasn't. You confuse the issue by saying that it has.
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
To: 'Ron Chitwood' <chitw@flash.net>; evolution@calvin.edu;
's_leyla@usa.net'
Subject: RE: Introducing the Science&Research Foundation
Date: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 10:36 AM
Ron CHitwood: Ah, macroevolution IS assumed microevolution isn't. Its been
verified in lab experiments.>>
Actually the artificial distinction between the two only furthers to
confuse the issues. But lets just address your statements. In experiments
and data both macro and micro evolution has been observed.
After all, evolution, as any science, is solidly grounded in observation,
data, hypothesis and prediction.
It is funny that something which is so obvious in data is being denied to
have happened. It's not a question anymore of did it happen but 'how did it
happen'.
I just wish that more people were aware of these facts.
Perhaps some links to some reading materials might help
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html : Evidence for
Common Descent and Macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html What is
macro-evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Observed instances of
speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Transitional fossils
----------
> From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
> To: evolution@calvin.edu; 's_leyla@usa.net'
> Subject: RE: Introducing the Science&Research Foundation
> Date: Sunday, August 02, 1998 7:39 AM
>
> S_leyla: All along the conference the lecturers added that evolution was
only an
> assumption which had no single evidence>>
>
> The irony!!! And they call themselves Science and Research Foundation.
>
> If it were not that sad, it might almost be funny.
>
----------