Re: Just for Bertvan

Susan Brassfield (
Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:51:51 -0600

>>Part of It may even be true, but science has no understanding of
>>the mechanism by which major changes in organisms happened. Insisting that
>>"random mutation and natural selection" is the answer, might even eventually
>>damage the credibility of science as Neo Darwinism becomes less and less

>"I think you must not understand why *evidence* is important. I have a
>feeling you've bought the line of argumentation that says that evolution is
>*merely* a philosophy. It's not, any more than physics is."
>Bertvan is not talking about evolution here; he is talking about the
>mechanism behind evolution. Now, since evidence is so important,
>please pick your favorite example of a major change in organisms
>(Bertvan's words) and cite the *evidence* that random mutation and
>selection was indeed the mechanism behind this change.

I would be delighted to present evidence for "macro" and "micro" evolution
that involve mutation and natural selection.

I would also like you to join me in challenging Bertvan to bring forth the
evidence which compelled him to disbelieve in "random mutation and natural



"Life itself is the proper binge."
--Julia Child