Hah! A blow for Darwin! He thanks you.
I'm still not a creationist.
--- CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/12/01 8:45:49 PM,
> >At 06:49 PM 12/01/01 -0800, johnn marlow wrote:
> >>If memory serves, Darwin himself
> >>conceded his theory had fatal flaws (the eye, for
> >>example; too complex, too soon); they have not, as
> >>yet, been corrected.
> >I love it! The major theory underlying all today's
> science is fundamentally
> >wrong, and here's the evidence: a bright guy who
> died 119 years ago missed
> >some of the subsequent supporting evidence and
> lines of development.
> That's an old chestnut. Actually Darwin said it
> *seemed* like his
> theory had fatal flaws like the development of
> complex parts. Then
> he took the most difficult example he could think of
> (the eye) and
> showed how it *could* arise by evolution. His
> outline has stood up
> nicely; we now know the eye has arisen over 40
> independent times
> (with exactly the variations Darwin would predict
> and thoughtful
> design would avoid). Dawkins calculated that
> 500,000 generations
> would suffice to generate an eye, based on known
> typical genetic
> Creationists *love* to quote Darwin out of context
> on the eye
> business, when he actually solved the issue 140
> years ago.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:19 MDT