>Again, surely the burden of proof is not to show that something has
>*not* occurred, but to show that it *has* ocurred?
>
I have no problem with this statement.
However, I do disagree with Art's conclusion made in an earlier post. He said:
No evolutionist has ever suggested any form on the Hawaiian
>Islands that is not a Drosophila was derived from a species that was. But
>you have correctly stated the case: How would you (or anybody else) know?
>Therefore any argument for evolution beyond what can be observed
>(proliferation of many species of a single genus) is specious. The evidence
>clearly favors limits.
If, as Art states, one cannot know whether or not "any form on the Hawaiian
Islands that is not Drosophila was derived from a species that was" then the
"evidence" cannot favor limits as he claims.
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "To disdain philosophy is really to
Madison, WI 53792 be a philosopher." Blaise Pascal
____________________________________________________________________________