Re: Chance

Ron Chitwood (chitw@flash.net)
Sun, 17 May 1998 12:25:43 -0500

>>>>: It's not sensible to regard microeveolution and macroevolution
as separably provable or disprovable as the mechanism accounting for
both are the same in evolutionary theory<<<

Yes, it is. Especially since it has been done all ready..
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net

----------
> From: Ian Pitchford <Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com>
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Chance
> Date: Sunday, May 17, 1998 10:29 AM
>
> Ron Chitwood wrote:
>
> " I differentiate between macro-evolution, (the gradualism
> that chance mutations would eventually produce fish, mammals, birds
> and reptiles). That is not science, but an unprovable, specious
> philosophy that masquerades as a science - and
> microevolution,(something that has been proven by the science labs in
> repetition and seems to be nothing more than variation within a gene
> pool)."
> _____________________
>
> REPLY: It's not sensible to regard microeveolution and macroevolution
> as separably provable or disprovable as the mechanism accounting for
> both are the same in evolutionary theory. Also, genotypic diversity
> and cumulative non-random natural selection are responsible for
> speciation, not chance mutation.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Ian
>
>
> _____________________________________________
> Ian Pitchford - Email: Ian.Pitchford@mcmail.com
> Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/
> University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent
> SHEFFIELD S10 2TA, United Kingdom.
> Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619
> _____________________________________________
> Online Dictionary of Mental Health
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/
> InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html
> _____________________________________________