🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul J. Gans (gans@scholar.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Marcelo Cantos (marcelo@mds.rmit.edu.au) wrote:
: : wf3h@enter.netxx writes:
: : 
: : > On 3 May 1997 02:33:24 GMT, jgardner@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (John Gardner)
: : > wrote:
: : > 
: : > >wf3h@enter.net wrote:
: : > 
: : > >: thats what happens with competition and the diversity of
: : > >: environments...no designer needed.
: : > >
: : > >assuming evolution and not weighing evidence.
: : > 
: : > uh, prove it. science IS evolution and NO designer. unless you have
: : > some reason for including magic...
: : 
: : You've just revealed your ideological bias by presupposing evolution.


: Bingo!  You've just been caught in the Giant Double Meaning Trap.
: There are two evolutions.  One is the FACT of evolution.  This
: fact comes from the observation that life has changed during
: the geologic history of the earth.  This is not in doubt as
: invalidating it would require invalidating almost all of 
: geology and much of chemistry, physics, and astronomy.

: The other is the *theory* as to how that change may
: have occured.  One may argue about the aptness or inaptness
: of the theory, that's fine.

: I do believe that the reference to evolution above was a
: reference to the FACT of evolution, not to a particular
: theory of how it occured.

:      ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

	No FACT of evolution where one species has led
to another.  Change within species to an extremely limited
degree yes, but nothing that would justify the _miraclulous_
transformation of one species into another.


--
    John Gardner