On 12/05/2006, at 5:16 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 5/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On the other hand the notion that evolution has no emprical
evidence is
simply untrue.
That's hardly the same as saying there is no direct evidence. What
I meant,
if it wasn't clear, is that nobody was observing evolution over the
last few
million years. True, though somewhat trivial.
Evidence and observation are not always the same.
Seeing someone walking up to a window and smashing it is observation.
Getting there a bit later and finding muddy footprints and bits of
glass is direct evidence. The fossil record is that direct evidence
for evolution. It's irrelevant that no one has dipped in and out of
real time and looked at the living animals and plants. We have dead
animals and plants and we know how old they are, so we have the
snapshots in time. And we have more and more of the bodies every year.
The "Were you there???" is a favourite creationist canard, and it
rankles me to see it espoused by people on "our side".
(And lest anyone jumping in
here takes this out of context, I am *not* arguing against
evolution as
science.)
That we know, Nick. But it's possible to agree with evolution and
still misunderstand or be ignorant of large parts of the evidence
(even as a zoologist, a lot of the genetic and biochemical stuff is
way outside my sphere).
As for whether or not there is elegance in the theory of evolution,
beauty
is in the eye of the beholder.
That is true. I happen to think it *is* elegant.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
