🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5kipjm$h5o@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, jgardner@ringer.cs.utsa.edu says...
>
>Paul J. Gans (gans@scholar.nyu.edu) wrote:
>: Marcelo Cantos (marcelo@mds.rmit.edu.au) wrote:

>: 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.
>
>






given enough time, all those little changes, which you allow, add up to big 
changes.  You seem to imply that evolution says that a dog gives birth to a 
cat, or a dinosaour gives birth to a bird.  this would in fact be a disproof of 
evolution.  the physicists (astronomers) and geologists assure us that there 
has in fact been enough time for lots of little changes to mount up to big 
changes (aka: speciation and evolution).




_____________________________________
The talk.origins faqs are at http://www.talkorigins.org/
Please cc any replies.  remove the xx in my email address.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than are lies."  --
F. Nietzsche
My thoughts are mine alone, no one else is responsible for them.
Stephen Guerke,                        University of Ediacara
http://www.udel.edu/sguerke            Student ID 000000007