CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Date:
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:15:22 -0500
Comments:
Resent-From: [log in to unmask] Originally-From: "Andrew K. Rindsberg" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
I have a theory that I got up this morning and am writing to you all on
Conch-L at this moment. I call it a theory, not a fact, because I am not
absolutely sure that I am not a computer program blessed with the trappings
of virtual memories and experiences.

So, you still want to call evolution "only a theory"?

Let's get back to basics. Here are some basics of the theory of evolution,
in a few words:

Observation: Plants and animals vary in nature, and much of this variation
is hereditary.

Observation: Mutations occasionally occur in DNA, the code of heredity.

Observation: Plants and animals, in the long run, produce more offspring
than can possibly survive.

Deduction: The offspring that do survive do not have quite the same
characteristics as their forebears. Instead, they are generally better
suited to life in their immediate environment. Given enough time and
generations, the descendants may indeed be very different from their
ancestors, as new hazards and opportunities arise.

This is a hard chain of reasoning to argue with, and most creationists
don't even try. Creationist literature often seems to be hostile to the
very idea of reasoning, as opposed to taking matters on faith. They
conveniently forget that most scientists profess themselves to be
religious, and that religious thought does not exclude logic. These days,
creationists tend to pick faults in Darwin's original explanation (which
was published about 150 years ago and has been improved upon since), or say
that beneficial mutations never occur (actually, they're just rare), or say
that the earth is not as old as geologists think it is (which would make
evolution into a correct theory that doesn't apply to the real earth. Think
about that). Or they just say that evolution is bad science that leads to
bad morals, without ever letting their people know what the theory of
evolution actually says. Well, if you've read this far, you know the basics
of evolution, so you can decide for yourself.

Andrew K. Rindsberg (or maybe just a computer program; how can you tell?)
Geological Survey of Alabama

ATOM RSS1 RSS2