🚀 go-pugleaf

Fred McGalliard wrote:
> 
> James S. Lovejoy wrote:
> >
> >(some comments that John Gardner wrote excluded for brevity)
> 
> > Well that's your problem.  Evolution the theory, doesn't predict, and
> > evolution the fact doesn't show the _miraculous_ transformation of one
> > species into another.  The facts show the _natural_ transformation of
> > one species into another, rather like the theory predicts.
> 
> Jim. The "facts" include an awful lot of left handed assumptions about
> what and why some changes take place in species populations, usually
> long dead ones. There is precious little real "evidence" for such
> changes that would hold up aginst even a mild friendly review. This is
> not entirely surprising, since transitional forms would hardly be
> expected to be very succesful. 

Why do you say this?  Natural selection says that features which
improve chances for survival (and reproductive success) are 
preferred.


> It does however suggest that we be less
> than bold about accepting the conclusion of the theory as proved.

After your comment about transitional forms, I'm pretty sure that
you don't understand natural selection.  You should really try
to learn the theory of evolution from biology textbooks, and
not from people who don't believe the theory.  Your approach is
like asking Dick Gephardt what Newt Gingrich thinks, rather than
asking Newt himself.

GS