From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>
>Chris
>Not necessarily. It would depend on the mechanism. We *do* see evolution
>happening right before our eyes, anyway, in the bacterial realm (because of
>the speed of reproduction), and in animal breeding (because breeders don't
>*induce* changes, but *only* select them when they appear naturally), and
in
>*many* examples like "industrial melanism." A few of these examples might
be
>spurious, or merely the appearance of evolution caused by poor observation,
>and some such evolution (as in the beak of the finch) is minor, at best,
but
>they make the critical point: naturalistic evolution does occur.
>
>However, once Stephen admits that it happens at all, his case for a
designer
>is ultimately *totally* destroyed, anyway, because of the uncarryable
burden
>of proof that that admission imposes on his position. He must then prove
>that there is some ultimate "barrier" to such change that forcibly
>*prevents* "macroevolution" from occurring.
There is another possible argument open to anti-evolutionists -- the "not
enough time" argument. I think this is their best hope of making a genuine
scientific case. Since it would be a quantitative argument, they would
have to do some real research and come up with some specific figures.
Richard Wein (Tich)
Please note my new email address <rwein@lineone.net>
and web address <http://website.lineone.net/~rwein/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 28 2000 - 04:08:05 EDT