In a message dated 9/8/2005 9:48:51 AM Mountain Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> We refer to the random-change theory as "the theory", rather than "a > theory", because all other theories have dropped out of serious > consideration; so > far all our epicycle analogs have fit right in, without becoming un-needed > complication, so the random-change theory of evolution hasn't needed > replacing > the way the perfect-circle theory of planetary movement did. > Well, I don't want to get into a big argument about all this. It's a minefield. Suffice it to say, there are analogues to epicycle add-ons under modern evolutionary theory, due to the lack of fossil records documenting hypothetical transitional links and intermediate forms. See, e.g., http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm It has been a surprise to me to learn this, having been thoroughly educated through some 20+ years of school in the theory of evoltuion (albeit at a primarily nontechnical level - I'm not a biologist). While I was in college, I attended a science lecture on the holes in the theory that were emerging, requiring revisions (epicycle analogues) due to the lack of evidence of interediate forms. This was my first inkling that the theory is not as "water-tight" as is commonly supposed by the educated class. You may have heard that some of the supposed intermediate forms were recently exposed as frauds. See e.g. http://www.darwinism-watch.com/new_page.php The fact is, the theory of evolution remains a theory, not a proven fact. (Like it or not!) That said, I respect people's right to believe it, the same as I respect people's right not to believe it. We're all in the dark, here..... Regards, Ricki Utah To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
