>Reflectorites
>
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:39:30 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>BV>It is possible that whales evolved from some wolf-like creature. What is
>>>being questioned is whether it happened because of "chance variation and
>>>natural selection".
>
>SB>since we can watch variation (whether "chance" or not) and natural
>>selection happen every day ...
>
>Compare this with:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:17:43 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote
>re: Examples of natural selection generating CSI:
>
>[...]
>
>WE>Natural selection, though, is notoriously difficult to
>>empirically isolate as a mechanism of action. The level of
>>evidence needed to both implicate natural selection and to
>>exclude genetic drift is high. [...]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>So when asked to give hard evidence of random mutation and natural
>selection accomplishing anything *today*, Darwinists either downplay
>RM&NS and talk of other mechanisms, or they present evidence of
>something *trivial* (like fluctuating colours in moths or length of finches'
>beaks), and even then there is some doubt that RM&NS was responsible.
good god! (or deity of your choice) You quoted a participating member of
this list out of context! ROFL!!!
Wesley was talking about *isolating* one of the mechanisms of evolution
from the the others. He didn't say it didn't exist or couldn't be observed.
Susan
----------
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced
by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew
why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct
species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and
natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the
laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 12:59:36 EDT