Speculation! Speculation! Scientists should not be involved with the
metaphysics of Evolution. Their job is to present facts, repeatable
experiments in the lab. The facts, so far, seem to be the opposite of what
an evolutionist would like. He should swallow his bias and admit that,
rather than go into wild flights of fancy on how evolution 'could' occur,
given our present state of knowledge.
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Evolution!! (D. Howes)
Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 10:56 PM
----------
From: Donald Howes[SMTP:dhowes@grug.une.edu.au]
On that evidence alone I could presume that there are boundries,
otherwise it would be just as easy to make a moth out of our fly as it
would be to make just another variety if fly!
>>
That might be because you are not looking far enough away. You are
discussing time frames of hundreds or at most thousands of years versus
hundreds of thousand to millions of years.
<<
I think what I am trying to say is that there is genetic information in a
creature that has room for certain variation, like a little dog to a
massive beast of a dog, but beyond that, you need new information.
>>
Do you ? All the information necessary is encoded in the genes. No new
information is needed.
<<
I have no idea if random mutation can create more information or not, so I
won't comment.
>>
The question is irrelevant, since you presume that there is more
information created without actually addressing if this is indeed the case.
If you want to see micro evolution, you can recreate it in a lab,
if you can't recreate it, it's probably macro! Thats my definition of the
difference, I just made up, I like it.>>
Of course laboratory experiments are far from the only data we have to
support evolution. The distinction of macro versus micro is an artificial
one.
Regards
Pim
----------