At 12:28 AM 4/15/00 -0700, Bill wrote:
>One problem with looking for evidence of macro evolution is that most
>creatures larger than microscopic size have to long a gestation period to
>allow much change to take place within the lifetime of an observer.
>Another problem is that new species are being discovered continually but
>the underlying assumption is they have existed undiscovered and not
>recently evolved. After all, we have only been looking for a couple
>hundred years.
>
>If I am to uneducated to be useful to the discussion feel free to
>disregard.
I have considerably less formal education than you do, so don't worry about
that.
A new species of fruit fly was discovered in the lab in the 50s. It could
only have evolved there. The first instance of speciation observed in the
wild was (about) 1907. It's been a while since I read the account, but there
were reasons to believe that it was a new species rather than an
undiscovered one.
oh, and the prediction of an insect with a long proboscis is a very ordinary
kind of scientific prediction. "If X is true then it is reasonable to assume
that Y is true. Let's test for Y." Try to think of a Y test for ID :-)
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 18 2000 - 18:56:36 EDT