Re: Just for Bertvan

Susan Brassfield (susan-brassfield@ou.edu)
Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:51:51 -0600

>Bertvan:
>
>>Part of It may even be true, but science has no understanding of
>>the mechanism by which major changes in organisms happened. Insisting that
>>"random mutation and natural selection" is the answer, might even eventually
>>damage the credibility of science as Neo Darwinism becomes less and less
>>credible.
>
>Susan:

Mike:
>"I think you must not understand why *evidence* is important. I have a
>feeling you've bought the line of argumentation that says that evolution is
>*merely* a philosophy. It's not, any more than physics is."
>
>Bertvan is not talking about evolution here; he is talking about the
>mechanism behind evolution. Now, since evidence is so important,
>please pick your favorite example of a major change in organisms
>(Bertvan's words) and cite the *evidence* that random mutation and
>selection was indeed the mechanism behind this change.

I would be delighted to present evidence for "macro" and "micro" evolution
that involve mutation and natural selection.

I would also like you to join me in challenging Bertvan to bring forth the
evidence which compelled him to disbelieve in "random mutation and natural
selection."

Susan

----------

"Life itself is the proper binge."
--Julia Child

http://www.telepath.com/susanb/