Re: Piecemeal genetic differences as support for macroevolution

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Sat Sep 09 2000 - 15:14:01 EDT

  • Next message: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID"

    In a message dated 9/9/2000 6:48:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Bertvan@aol.com
    writes:

    << However you eventually define "random", you are going to end up with two
     groups of people who are in disagreement. And most of them are aware of
     where their difference of opinion lies. One group believes evolution
     occurred without plan, purpose or design. The other group, ID, believes
     "variations" in organisms occurred according to some presently unknown plan
     or purpose. Most ID supporters argue that natural selection acts to ensure
     stasis and has contributed nothing toward the creation of complexity. This
     is a legitimate difference of opinion, for which evidence for either side
    can
     be cited. There is no way for either to be conclusively demonstrated at this
     time. I don't see how redefining terms might contribute to resolving the
     controversy. >>

    I refer you to an interesting paper that shows that the ID supporters
    arguments are not supported by fact. actually they are contradicted by fact

    http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/index.html

    Evolution of biological information
    http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 09 2000 - 15:14:13 EDT