Subject | Re: Evolution |
From | Ermanna |
Date | 2002-04-17 16:43 (2002-04-17 10:43) |
Message-ID | <3CBD8A02.3D29F7B5@erols.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
Follows | Thomas Brenndorfer |
Followups | Ville Salo (5h & 54m) > Ermanna AC (6h & 26m) Conrad Dunkerson (7h & 28m) rand mair fheal (8h & 31m) the softrat (9h & 47m) Morgil Blackhope (11h & 21m) |
Thomas Brenndorfer<shnip> No one is debating microevolution.
Every day more and more evidence is being accumulated about the facts of evolution and its basis in genetics. Evolution is simply a numerical rate-- the change in the frequency of alleles (i.e., genes) in a population.
The numerical proof of genetics and allele frequency for macroevolution came later.<shnip> You haven't given an example for macroevolution, only microevolution. <shnip>
The logical conclusion from all this is that all life shares a common history-- a descent from a common ancestor.
They continued to make the same claim (microevolution yes; macroevolution no) even when it could be clearly demonstrated what scientists studying evolution are really dealing with.Demostrate then, and with something other than microevolution. <shnip>
And of course these are the same people fighting to bring creationism into the science classroom,Of course, evolutionist are also terrified of letting creationism _into_ the classroom. I wonder why?
often using stealth tactics such as stacking school boards, instead of demonstrating any scientific basis for their beliefs,We have more science on our side than you do. <shnip>
As the Pope said: "Evolution is more than a hypothesis".Microevolution is. Macroevolution isn't.