Google| Subject | Re: Queen mother (of Britain) has died |
| From | Beren |
| Date | 2002-04-11 05:10 (2002-04-11 05:10) |
| Message-ID | <01c1e106$47e18560$ab021ad3@c-1> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Graeme |
| Followups | AC (13m) |
Evolution is true, in the sense that one particular species can evolve to adapt better to its surroundings. However, there is no convincing proof that one species can evolve into another. For example, there is not one single case of a series of fossils showing the continuous succession of one species evolving into another. The classic case of the horse skeletons which showed three species of horse, each different in size, does not prove that they evolved from one another. The fact that not one skeleton was ever found to represent a transition between the horse species is not good for those convinced of evolution.
And natural selection" is a rather silly notion if you define it as nature selecting those species who are fittest, to survive, because you run into circular "logic": Which species survive? The fittest. Who are the fittest? Those who survived. Etc, etc. There is no possible way to prove that the species on Earth now were in fact the fittest a couple of thousand years ago. In fact, many biologists who specialise in the evolution of certain species define "fittest" to mean "those species who produce the most offspring", which does not at all mean that those species are necessarily the fittest at all.
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
