<< >Bertvan:
>So natural selection has been verified in the fossil record? >>
Dexter:
>Ahhh - the NEW 'we'll get those evolutionists with THIS one' question.
>Mike Gene has been prattling on about this at the ARN site for a while now.
>No longer able to rationally or scientifically argue against evolution and
>the evidence for it, they now concentrate on the mechanisms. They will
>ALWAYS be able to reject any evidence on that since it will be impossible,
as
>far as I can tell, to establish what exact mechanisms were involved in
>ancient evolution, and they will always insist on being presented with what
>is 'just over the next hill' before accepting anything.
Bertvan
Hi Dexter,
Is an understanding of the mechanisms involved in macro evolution "just over
the hill"? What are we supposed to accept? That living organisms have
changed over time? A change in the gene pool? We accept it! Mike Gene
accepts it! I accept it! Philip Johnson accepts it! OK? It is the ability
of natural selection to create novel complexity that we don't accept.
Bertvan
> Mike Gene wanted
>evidence that Natural Selection was the primary driving force behind
>mammalian evolution. I presented two papers in which evidence for selection
>had been found. He of course claimed them irrelevant because: 1.they did
>not cover the evolution of all mammals and 2. (and this one is a gem) the
>papers did not explain how they would differentiate natural selection from
>artificial (i.e., designed?). How comforting it must be to continually move
>the goal posts, then carry on about how the other team can't seem to
score....
Bertvan:
Didn't read the papers and can't speak for Mike Gene. However, we who
question Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection as an explanation
of macro evolution) have often felt Darwin defenders were the ones who tried
to move the goal posts by asserting that the mechanisms aren't important -
evolution is merely a "change in the gene pool over time."
Dexter:
>Of course, there has yet to be ANY evidence AT ALL presented supportive of
ID.
Bertvan:
The evidence is available to all of us. It is unimportant whether you find
that evidence persuasive. Those scientists who do find design a valid
scientific assumption will probably use it. Would you object?
Dexter:
>I don't suppose there will be any time soon - of course, Mike Gene also
>gleefully informed me that I, being a evolutionist and all, wouldn't be able
>to recognize such evidence anyway. Only a special group of the faithful,
>apparently, can see this amazing evidence....
Bertvan:
I wonder if the ID theorists will prove as "faithful" as the Darwinists were?
If no one knows the mechanisms behind evolution, any idea of what DID happen
seems a pretty vague. If evolution as a "change in the gene pool over time"
satisfies you, I wouldn't criticize you. Please don't insist that everyone
else, including school children, be satisfied with that explanation.
Bertvan.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 13:30:17 EST