Re: Especially for Bertvan
Susan Brassfield (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:43:59 -0600
>>RM&NS to me is kind of axiomatic; I look for naturalistic explanation of
>>natural phenomena, and I accept the logic of natural selection as a valid
>>explanatory principle. I wouldn't call it a *metaphysical* principle, but
>>maybe you would. In any case, I accept it.
>>As to impressive examples of evolutionary change, I think the most
>>impressive in the sense of indisputability are those that show gradual
>>change in a sequence of fossils, as in the evolution of the modern horse
>>from little eohippus. Obviously such sequences show only trivial
>>modifications in morphology. But it takes very little faith to extend the
>>notion of evolution further, to presume descent where there are
>>clearly homologous structures.
>>It takes more faith than I have, to presume that simple chordates became
>>complex vertebrates through the same gradual process, when there are
>>no fossils of intermediate forms. But given my belief in evolution through
>>RM&NS, I must theorize that macroevolution occurred here, through
>>mechanisms we haven't yet figured out.
>Thank you for admitting your belief in a naturalistic explanation for macro
>evolution is based on faith. Few Neo Darwinists are so honest.
I think you may have misunderstood what Cliff said. I have faith that the
sun will rise in the morning because there are thousands of years of
observational evidence that the earth rotates and the sun rises. That's a
bit different from "I believe it for no other reason than because I want it
to be true."
>I can tolerate your faith if you can tolerate
your faith would be a little more tolerable if there was some supporting
evidence for it.
"Life itself is the proper binge."