nobody, not even Kevin. He said nature changes and therefore life must
change to survive.
>Haven't some organisms remained
>relatively unchanged?
yes, in a few relatively unchanged environments--as in the sea.
>Kevin:
>>2) nature provides an unlimited
>>supply of unsolicited, fortuitous, hereditary novelties;
>
>Bertvan:
>Again, we don't know for sure if nature provides any unsolicited, fortuitous,
>hereditary novelties. They might all be "solicited and planned-and some
>might not be hereditary.
it could be planned by some supernatural (but unnamed, of course) being.
And the "novelties" must be hereditary to be passed on to offspring.
>Bertvan:
>"Independently of the actions and/or desires of nature or the organism" is
>again one of Darwin's assumptions.
and the assumptions of nearly everyone else. How much "will power" does it
take to change your reproductive cells? And if anybody can do it, I'd buy a
ticket so I could watch.
>If we don't know how these novelties
>happen to appear, that must remain part of Darwin's theory, not factual.
we know that radiation will cause mutations and certain chemicals will
also. Recently organisms under high stress have been observed to begin
mutating rapidly. Darwin didn't know about mutations or radiation and such.
He only knew that organisms vary which they obviously do.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/