I am not a scientist, just a laymen to whom the inadequacies of Darwinism
seem so apparent that even lawyers can't help noticing them. I won't try to
say more about the following web site, except to say I'm happy there are
scientists not blinded by Darwinism, a hypothesis which has been an albatros
hindering further understanding of evolution for more than a century.
(Davison claims Darwinism doesn't even deserve the status of a theory.)
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvam
Just a couple of quotes
. Macroevolution is largely finished.
Sexual reproduction is incapable of supporting trans-specific
(macroevolutionary) change. Accordingly, all significant change
was produced presexually involving the first meiotic division.
The essential feature of these changes was due not to micromutations
in the genes themselves, but rather to the way in which those genes
express their effects which is dependent upon their arrangement within
the structure of the chromosome (position effect).
No one denies the validity of Galileo's equation which relates
the distance that a body falls to time, or Newton's laws of motion,
or Einstein's equation relating energy and mass. Why then must one
reject, as the Darwinians do, the suggestion that comparable laws
exist or have existed controlling the living world? Everyone
accepts gravitation and the equations associated with it, yet
no one yet understands the cause of gravity. Accordingly, neither
in religion nor in science does acceptance demand understanding.
Nevertheless, the Darwinians continue to insist that evolution is
the result only of chance events. Stephen J. Gould has recently
compared evolution to a drunk reeling back and forth between the
bar room wall and the gutter (Gould 1996 page 149). He has also
described intelligence as an evolutionary accident. I will only
comment that it was some accident!
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/ontogeny.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 06 2000 - 17:05:35 EST