alwagner at tcac.net
Sun Jun 16 15:26:37 PDT 2002
On Sunday 16 June 2002 05:38 pm, Steve Bougerolle wrote:
> Ok, seriously, let me be more specific about where I disagree. I am
> aware that speciation has been observed, and I don't find it at all hard
> to accept that accumulated random mutations can create new species in
> general. However, I do find it an unsatisfying explanation of a few
> particular steps. In particular, it doesn't seem to me at all a
> satisfactory explanation of how multi-celled life can evolve from
> single-celled life.
I suppose I need to apologize then for my previous post; you really accept
evolution as the most likely explanation for speciation. As far as I know
that is as far as the theory of evolution goes.
> Well, if your point is simply that macroevolution occurs, then we can
> stop arguing because I agree with that as far as it goes. My dispute,
> ultimately, is with too many people who leap from there to saying that
> it is a complete explanation for the shape of life as we see it, and
> then go on to (generalizing) make pronouncements that there is no
> planning or direction to the universe.
I am a Christian who is also an evolutionist. I also believe that there is a
direction to evolution and that God is ultimately responsible for that
direction, but there is no scientific proof of that and not likely to be in
this life. Faced with the evidence, even an honest creationist must agree
that it is certainly "as if" evolution is true. But, then they are stuck
with a God who plays practical jokes on man and purposely misleads those
seeking to discover his "creative" word.
> My religious interest only kicks
> in at this point, and as I said I am concerned with ethics, not
> interested in any sort of creationist debate; I don't like this view
> because I see it leading to a gross lack of respect for life and a
> dangerous overconfidence in how much we know.
This is an ENTIRELY different topic. And one that you would find many
evolutionists agree with you on. Why did you not say so sooner. Playing the
> In my first post way back
> when I commented on a couple signs of this; people trying to patent
> genes and blithely indulging in genetic modification for short-term
> commercial advantage.
Again, I couldn't agree more. And I think most honest evolutionists would
> Thanks for the reference. I brushed up on the latest from talk.origins
> last night, reviewing punctuated equilibrium and genetic drift and so
> on. All nice to read, but all just word games.
ALL theories arise out of such "word games." Such games are a necessary part
of deciding where to focus ones efforts.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-chat