Re: Don't forget about me! (distal vs. proximate)

From: Bert M (
Date: Sun Apr 15 2001 - 20:47:10 EDT

  • Next message: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: Don't forget about me! (distal vs. proximate)" wrote:

    > In a message dated 4/14/01 8:15:56 AM, writes:
    > << The basic idea of biological evolution, that there has been a long
    > process of "descent with modification", is so well established a theory that
    > the
    > likelihood of it being overturned is extremely remote.>>


    I would like to refrase your statement.

    "The observation (this is an observation, not a theory.) that the fossil record
    shows a series of animals of increasing complexity is and should be accepted as

    "The theory that the older ones changed into the younger ones of greater
    complextity through

                decent with modifiction

                (genetic mutation followed by survival of the fittest)

    is of great controversy."

    Many including non-thiests do not see the power in these proposed mechanisms to
    do the invention in the finite time scale available.

    "The obervation that the animals onces formed remained stable over long periods
    of time broken by quick changes of form (stasis followed by punctuation) is
    widely but not completely accepted."

    The observation of a sequence could be explained by devine influence and would
    be consistent with the. For the observation of a sequence to be explained by
    mechanistic evolution such as is noted above needs to be established. So-called
    microevolution, while touted as proof, is a weak case at the very best and bad
    science in a more candid view.

    Bert Massie

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 15 2001 - 20:37:41 EDT