Posted by rpcman on September 17, 1999 at 11:15:38:
In Reply to: Macroevolution posted by Tom on September 17, 1999 at 08:46:16:
: I agree that the fossil
: record provides at least circumstantial evidence for macroevolution.
And genetic, homological, and phylogeny evidence provide further collaboration.
: I'm not contending that living things came
: into existence instantaneously.
So what are you contending?
: In fact the fossil record seems to show a number of anomalies that contradict
: the macroevolutionary view.
For instance?
: Nevertheless, the fossil record seems to support
: what Gould (who is certainly an orthodox evolutionist) claims.
I have no problem with PE theory. Is this what you believe? It certainly holds that macroevolution can, does, and has happened.
: To go back to the original point about lab-induced macroevolution, I realize that this
: may be impossible. Still it would be nice if the scientic elites could be a bit more
: forthright in acknowledging the limitations of scientific method to demonstrate such claims.
You seem to be stuck with the same misunderstanding of the scientific method that blue has fallen for.
: But I get the impression that it is sacred dogma
: for many of you folks, and not subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other
: scientific subjects.
Scrutinize away. You have yet to provide a single bit of evidence to show a) that macro-evolution hasn't occured and/or b) a theory which better fits the facts.
: Many of my scientific colleagues here at the University of Georgia share my skepticism.
For instance? (Let's hear some names and see their publications.)
Are any of them skeptical of religion as well?