Skip to main content
news

Re: Queen mother (of Britai...

AC
Google Google
SubjectRe: Queen mother (of Britain) has died
FromAC
Date2002-04-11 06:25 (2002-04-11 06:25)
Message-ID<3cb50f2a.4131015@news2.randori.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsJoy
FollowupsGraeme (12h & 20m) > AC
On 10 Apr 2002 21:06:43 -0700, queen_yoj@hotmail.com (Joy) wrote:

Joy
"TradeSurplus" <tradesurplus@hotmail.com>wrote:

TradeSurplus
You really need to clear up in your mind the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis.

Joy
Yeah, I realized I was arguing two separate things... :) So far it seems like nobody has any idea how that bugger of a first cell got here. As for evolution, some seem to accept it as "fact".

There are ideas.

Evolution is fact, just as gravity is fact. We may not always be able to explain evolution or gravity to everyone's satisfaction, but that does not mean they aren't facts.

TradeSurplus
Evolution is true, it's a fact, it's been demonstrated and it's only denied by extreme nutcases with no grasp of the relevant science and only the most tenuous of grasps on reality.

Joy
Whoa. We know microevolution and evolution within species occurs, but macroevolution involving a species-level change in genetic code has yet to be documented as "fact", I believe. If so I must've missed it. It isn't a "fact".

Define macroevolution. Speciation has been observed, which is one of the core tenets of evolution. Whether you choose to believe it or not does not make the evidence go away.

TradeSurplus
BTW, accepting the fact that evolution is true shouldn't upset a belief in God any more than accepting the fact that some rocks (and cities for that matter) are more than 6,000 years old does.

Joy
I know that. I just don't accept *anything* as fact. There is no evidence at all for abiogenesis,

I wouldn't say there's no evidence. It is clear that the early Earth had plenty of organic chemicals, and all theories of abiogenesis predict that life as we know it would require that.

the fossil record for evolution is sketchy at best,

Better than sketchy. For some groups of animals like horses and whales, it's very convincing.

nobody can thoroughly explain the evolution of wings, feathers, or avian flight,

There are a number of explanations, most dealing with feathers starting out as a cooling method. Even if I were to accept your statement, a lack of explanation for certain structures or behaviors does not dismantle evolution.

and as those on this thread have said, the actual mechanism of evolution is a mystery.

Who said that? I never did. What I said was we don't understand *all* the mechanisms. Why would you feel the need to distort?

Very few things are actually "fact", and macroevolution is certainly not one of them.

Define macroevolution. Speciation has been observed even within the limited period of time we've been looking.

The "fact" that the universe is infinite is *not* a fact, just conjecture based on what evidence people have gathered.

What does an infinite or finite universe have to do with evolution?

--- AaronC

Google
Graeme (12h & 20m) > AC