>well, evidence *is* nice! :-) there's no real reason to believe that things
>operated differently then than they do now. What was different? If you have
>a number series that goes 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 are we supposed to believe that
>there's no such thing as "2"? or can we safely assume for the moment that
>it's just missing?
That would be practical in many cases, but I'd rather be more thoughtful
about evolution.
Taking the evidence at face value isn't such a bad thing. That's what
Wegener did, for example. When everyone else thought there was nothing
as unworthy of consideration as the idea that continents floated about like
ducks on a pond.
Isn't the idea of a rapid formative phase of evolution *interesting*? Do we
have to sweep anomalies like the Cambrian explosion under the rug, for
fear of being creationistic? Isn't figuring out what really happened a lot
more fun than debating creationism?
Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com