🚀 go-pugleaf

John Gardner (jgardner@ringer.cs.utsa.edu) wrote:
: 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.

Nope.  You've still got it wrong.  We know from the geological
record that there were all sorts of interesting creatures alive
in the Permian.  No creature now alive is found in Permian rocks.
From this we conclude that life has changed.  THAT is the fact
of evolution.  

You were referring above to species changes.  That's theory
(and experimental evidence, but that's another story.)

What one *can* conclude from the *fact* of evolution is that
*either* living forms have changed spontaneously *or* that
a God, Gods, or whatever have indulged in continuous creation.

You have termed the transformation of one species into another
as _miraculous_.  To me that means that you admit that species
have been dramatically changed.  Your theory is that this was
a miracle.  Fine and dandy, but just remember that it is a
theory you are advancing to EXPLAIN the FACT of evolution.

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