Bertvan
> The truth is one doesn't even have to be religious to consider
> "random mutation and natural selection" a silly explanation for
> macro evolution.
Tedd:
>Why is this a silly explanation?
Howard:
>I have no idea why Bertvan considers it silly, but let me explain briefly
>why I do not.
I'm still trying to find the evidence that mutations and natural selection
were indeed the mechanisms behind macroevolution. There seems to be a large
consensus that this was the case, but where's the evidence? I understand how
various metaphysical views can incorporate natural selection and transform it
into the driving mechanism, but apart from those metaphysics, where is the
persuasive appeal of such a belief?
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 27 2000 - 20:33:58 EST