I had written: ..."But we do not (thankfully) inhabit such an imaginary
world, and, therefore, I was thinking that the argument must therefore be
at least somewhat weaker here."
David Campbell replied that "Actually, such a world would suggest the
existence of some sort of macroevolutionary factors distinct from
microevolution (defining microevolution as the everyday infraspecific
variation, e.g. children not identical to parents)."
Very likely so. My point was only to observe that the strength of the
data we observe for the thesis that "macroevolution is microevolution
writ large," would be larger in a theoretical world where inter-species
mating was possible. On the other hand, if we lived in a world where new
species appeared suddenly, with no particular reason to suggest their
origins, then the strength of the data for the thesis would necessarily
be much lower. At least it would be lower until (and unless) such an
origination were actually observed (a cow giving birth to a giraffe, for
Still, even in this last world, the TOE would be the only viable
SCIENTIFIC theory possible.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 11:45:23 EST