Before I post it, I wanted to say that the people here in Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia have been so nice, welcoming and personable. Maybe it's because they don't know that we are Americans? I say this because if you go to the above link to the comment section, you will read what they really think of Americans; and they express particular disdain for Christians!!
Darn. I'll have to report this to my husband when he returns from golfing. I'm sure he'll be disappointed to hear about this. It will burst his bubble of Canadian hospitality for sure!
Here was the question:
I don't understand why religious fanatics can't accept evolution as evidence of God.
Notice the label of fanatics attributed by the commenter. It gets even worse. Christians are labeled as "illiterate," "ignorant," "uneducated," "superstitious," "myth-believers," etc. You get the picture.
However, I liked what the commenter J Luft from Calgary, Canada wrote:
Once again Canadians are showing their profound arrogance in thinking that their beliefs are the only correct ones. It is really more of a display of how completely Canadians have been indoctrinated in being unwilling to accept the views of others. Typical, though.
My answer included links to several blogposts here:
Evolution Is Often The "Religion" Of The Unbeliever
Debate? Or Talking Past Each Other?
I also included a summary from the first link that directly answers the question:
Let me share with you why my investigation of theistic evolution turned me away from such a concept.
In addition to this, there are some articles written by Greg Koukl on the subject of theistic evolution in the archive section at my message board. This may provide more detailed reasons for you to see my points.
Why I reject theistic evolution:
Jesus believed in and spoke about the Genesis account of Creation. That alone should be enough for Bible-believing, Word of Truth Christians.
Theistic Evolution involves the notion that God initially began creation and then used evolution to produce the universe as we know it. The big issue is with macroevolution which claims that all of life evolved fortuitously from a single cell made up of amino acids, RNA, DNA etc.; then through chance there were mutations that allowed lower, simplistic forms of life to become more complex specimens. We all emerged over time, from the slime into our present humanity. Is man in his origin the product of a purposive act of divine intelligence, or is man a cosmic accident? Are we creatures of dignity or creatures of cosmic insignificance?
Microevolution, the indication that there is a change, a progression involving different directions among various species that we can track historically is of no consequence with respect to biblical Christianity. It's the unsubstantiated myth of macroevolution that presents rational, logical as well as theological objections. One day this unmitigated nonsense will be totally rejected by the scientific community.
In this post, I will focus in on the theological objections to theistic evolution. A Christian (IMHO) cannot believe that he is a cosmic accident and at the same time believe in the sovereign God and the Creator God. Theistic evolution must make a complete allegory out of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4, for which there is no warrant. The suggestion that humanity is derived from a non-human ancestor cannot be reconciled with the explicit statement of man's creation in Genesis 2:7. Man did not evolve but rather was created from the dust of the ground. How can I know for sure? As a Bible believing Christian, I recognize that if Adam was not a real historical person, then the analogy between Christ and Adam in Romans 5:12-21 utterly breaks down.
Certainly Christ believed in a literal creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). (Christ would know, for He is elsewhere portrayed as the Creator- (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2,10.) Jesus Christ's words have the authority to be trusted in this particular matter as surely as His words can be trusted in other matters.
Romans 5:8 and John 3:16 reveals God's love for us through Christ the Redeemer. As far as Christianity is concerned, if there's no creation, then there's nothing to redeem. If we come from nothing and go to nothing, then we are nothing under any objective analysis. Nehemiah 9:6 explicitly rejects such a notion.
Posts
18 comments:
Oops! I had to re-submit my comments at the Globe and Mail website and eliminate the html links that I included. I just read this at the bottom of the comment section:'
"Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment
Editor’s Note: Globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject, in its entirety, the appearance on this website of each comment. Allowed comments are not the opinion of The Globe and Mail, but only of the comment-writer. Spelling and grammar errors will not be corrected. HTML is not allowed. Comments that we will not allow include the following: comments that include personal attacks on Globe journalists or other participants in these forums; comments that make obviously false or unsubstantiated allegations; comments that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact is not publicly known; or comments that include vulgar language or libelous statements."
How interesting that they don't accept html links! I thought that Canada was a liberal, socialist-leaning country. Why would they want to prevent links from their readers and commenters?
Hmmm.....
Seems strange to me...
> Evolution Is Often The "Religion" Of The Unbeliever
I find it funny that you would reference that post of yours, given how the comments thread there ends. You dropped the discussion there, as you have done several times in the past, with me and with others.
In any case, good for you for not accepting evolution as evidence of god. Neither do I.
> If we come from nothing and go to nothing, then we > are nothing under any objective analysis.
Not that it matters, but this is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow that coming from "nothing" and going to "nothing" means we are "nothing."
I say that it doesn't matter because you are using it as part of a circular argument anyway: you believe something that the Bible says because another part of the Bible say so.
I am traveling today so I don't have much time to reply. But I wanted to point out that I was stating why I can't accept (macroevolution) Darwinism as "evidence for God" because that was the question the person on the Globe comment section asked.
Well I've got to run. But there is much more to it, and much more evidence (look up Simon Greenleaf's evidence for the resurrection of Christ, for one) that truly shows the evidence for God to mankind.
Canada: "The No Free Speech Zone."
Little surprise that the Globe and Mail didn't publish my comment. They have now "closed down" the comment section with a note to "write a letter to the editor."
Yeah right. I'll waste my time doing that...
Here's another perfect example of Canada's liberal-bent, socialistic governmental rule of preventing the free speech of those with whom they disagree with. It appears that if you open your mouth to proclaim the biblical truth about homosexual behavior being wrong and your accompanying website isn't "locked in step" with the pro-homosexual agenda mantra, they can use their new "laws" to sue in order to dissuade any dissenting views from getting out there with the true purpose of silencing dissenting voices!! (Now we know why 39% of Americans who don't believe in evolution...at least have the free speech right to say it!!.
Here, in America, Christians often get verbally bashed for their beliefs but Canadian Christians not only get silenced on "politically incorrect" views, they also get sued and fined!! Sheesh!!
Thank God for our First Amendment!
Read and weep for Canadian Christians:
O Canada? NO, Canada!
When an unapologetically conservative talk show host in Alberta, Canada's most conservative province, posted a letter on his website, the feathers flew. Rev. Stephen Boisson's letter criticized the main aspects of the homosexual agenda in Canada. Furious, a professor at the University of Calgary filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The petulant prof wants to shut down three websites--concernedchristians.ca, freetospeak.ca and freedomradionetwork.ca.
So far, Craig Chandler, the talk show host, has faced legal costs approaching $100,000. His fees could run as high as $250,000. "The thing about a Human Rights Commission complaint is that it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, you still have to foot the bill. If I want to get our money back, I have to take them to civil court," he said. And that, Chandler points out, will only cost more money. This is another powerful example of how the left misuses government to harass Christians and suppress free speech on important public issues. Canada does not have a First Amendment. We do. But for how long?
Hey my Canadian Christian brothers and sisters! Don't loose heart...stay strong and steadfast! Here's a book for you to order!
Order Your Copy Now
The Bible, The Church, and Homosexuality
Phronk stated, "You realize they're exactly the same process, right?"
No. They are not. Even Dictionary.com admits that much.
Macroevolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
Microevolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.
Many evolutionists have admitted that the connection between the two is an extrapolation of the evidence.
Extrapolation: n 1: (mathematics) calculation of the value of a function outside the range of known values
2: an inference about the future (or about some hypothetical situation) based on known facts and observations.
Main Entry: in·fer·ence
Pronunciation: 'in-f&-r&ns
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of inferring; specifically : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow logically from that of the former
2 : something inferred; especially : a proposition arrived at by inference —see also permissive presumption at PRESUMPTION
3 : the premises and conclusions of a process of inferring
Presumption: Main Entry: pre·sump·tion
Pronunciation: pri-'z&mp-sh&n
Function: noun
: an inference as to the existence of a fact not certainly known that the law requires to be drawn from the known or proven existence of some other fact.
Macroevolution is fact?
NADA!!
Formation of a new taxonomic group is very different from a new subspecies.
They are not the same, Boo.
Another point:
Relatively small genetic variations does not have the creative power to form a "new taxonomic group." Thus, we have the extrapolation of the evidence.
Boo said, "So what is the force that keeps changes from accumulating?"
I think that you are asking the wrong question. It's not a matter of "what force keeps changes from accumulating." You can accumulate all the "changes" within a species that you want, but there are not any observable changes from the fossil record from one taxonomic group to the other.
Phronk,
What's so "weird" about my assumption that religious speech is often discouraged at the Globe and Mail site?
When I registered, I noticed that there were absolutely no categories that had to do with faith, religion or values in the "interest" section. Now that's pretty sad!
Nope Boo. It's speculation and extrapolation that is being put forth as "evidence" for which you espouse. I don't need to read your link anyway. There is adequate information that I have already read that shows how wrong you are.
Stephen C. Meyer's paper discusses this specific issue in his paper The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.
Here is a portion:
The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories
Stephen C. Meyer
Introduction
In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology (2003), Gerd B. Muller and Stuart Newman argue that what they call the “origination of organismal form” remains an unsolved problem. In making this claim, Muller and Newman (2003:3-10) distinguish two distinct issues, namely, (1) the causes of form generation in the individual organism during embryological development and (2) the causes responsible for the production of novel organismal forms in the first place during the history of life. To distinguish the latter case (phylogeny) from the former (ontogeny), Muller and Newman use the term “origination” to designate the causal processes by which biological form first arose during the evolution of life. They insist that “the molecular mechanisms that bring about biological form in modern day embryos should not be confused” with the causes responsible for the origin (or “origination”) of novel biological forms during the history of life (p.3). They further argue that we know more about the causes of ontogenesis, due to advances in molecular biology, molecular genetics and developmental biology, than we do about the causes of phylogenesis--the ultimate origination of new biological forms during the remote past.
In making this claim, Muller and Newman are careful to affirm that evolutionary biology has succeeded in explaining how preexisting forms diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and variation of genetic traits. Sophisticated mathematically-based models of population genetics have proven adequate for mapping and understanding quantitative variability and populational changes in organisms. Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure. They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)--that selection must act on what already exists. Yet, in their view, the “genocentricity” and “incrementalism” of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists. Instead, Muller and Newman see the need to identify epigenetic sources of morphological innovation during the evolution of life. In the meantime, however, they insist neo-Darwinism lacks any “theory of the generative” (p. 7).
As it happens, Muller and Newman are not alone in this judgment. In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: “starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism's) adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, 'the origin of species--Darwin's problem--remains unsolved'“ (p. 361). Though Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to solve the problem of the origin of form by proposing a greater role for developmental genetics within an otherwise neo-Darwinian framework,1 numerous recent authors have continued to raise questions about the adequacy of that framework itself or about the problem of the origination of form generally (Webster & Goodwin 1996; Shubin & Marshall 2000; Erwin 2000; Conway Morris 2000, 2003b; Carroll 2000; Wagner 2001; Becker & Lonnig 2001; Stadler et al. 2001; Lonnig & Saedler 2002; Wagner & Stadler 2003; Valentine 2004:189-194).
What lies behind this skepticism? Is it warranted? Is a new and specifically causal theory needed to explain the origination of biological form?
Read the rest of the paper at the link to find out how much good sense Meyer makes through his research!
Boo,
Obviously you choose not to admit that Meyer is correct in most, if not all, of his assertions. I could cut and paste from his article, but anyone reading here has the link (posted above) to it so they will see that it is a philosophical debate more than a "scientific" one.
I have seen this time and time again, macroevolutionists will never admit the lack of fossil evidence for that portion of the theory. They will never admit that their a priori adherence to materialism, (no matter which direction the evidence leads, which is design)is the real reason why ID is rejected. The courts have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Darwinists false claims that ID is "religious" just like Creation. ID doesn't use the Bible for it's information, it uses what is seen through the evidence that points towards design. But that's the excuse that Darwinists have been able to use to eliminate ID from consideration. The design inference may only be an hypothesis at this point, but why should students be denied such an inference? You claim that the "inference from microevolution gives evidence for macroevolution" but you are unwilling to allow an inference from design? How prejudice of you! How biased! Get me a lawyer! It's a hate crime! You hate IDeists!
Hundreds of scientists claim that macroE is a bunch of hogwash (and I agree!). These brave souls are willing to put their careers, funding, reputations etc. on the line to show the truth about Darwinism's deficiencies; to the huge dismay, outright indignation, and obvious rage of their former "colleagues." There is a philosophical bias going on in scientific circles and now the public is seeing it firsthand.
One day the macroevolutionary "theory" will end up in the trash heap of history as the bogus fraud and deception that it is!
About theistic evolution. The reasons why I can't accept that either is because Jesus reiterates the CREATION of Adam and Eve, not the "evolution over billions of years" fairy tale that evolutionists foolishly want to believe. Radiometric dating is a concept created by man, not God. They are off by billions of years, too!
If some Christians want to believe in theistic evolution, so be it. But I'm not fooled by it.
Christine, let's make a thought experiment: Suppose that you saw clear evidence of speciation, or what you call "macroevolution." Suppose it was beyond doubt that it happens.
Would that change your mind? Are you open to that possibility?
Just curious.
Ha! This is quite funny.
The "word verification" letters are:
nopeidxn
Add a few letters and you get:
nope, id x (often used to represent Christ) and n for Christian!
Does that answer your question Juan?
I will post a new blogpost that includes a chapter from a book that I have been reading that further explains why I believe that macroevolution is a fairy tale for adults.
"Speciation" does not a show that one species changes into another completely different taxonomic group. This is where the fossil record is lacking in the evidence for that portion of the theory.
"In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: “starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism's) adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, 'the origin of species--Darwin's problem--remains unsolved'“ (p. 361). Though Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to solve the problem of the origin of form by proposing a greater role for developmental genetics within an otherwise neo-Darwinian framework,1 numerous recent authors have continued to raise questions about the adequacy of that framework itself or about the problem of the origination of form generally (Webster & Goodwin 1996; Shubin & Marshall 2000; Erwin 2000; Conway Morris 2000, 2003b; Carroll 2000; Wagner 2001; Becker & Lonnig 2001; Stadler et al. 2001; Lonnig & Saedler 2002; Wagner & Stadler 2003; Valentine 2004:189-194)."
from Stephen C. Meyer's paper
[Sometimes people have to read things three times before they get it!]
Boo, Juan and Phronk,
Just because the evidence that I have found to believe in the steadfast faith of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Bible doesn't jibe with what each of you regard as "evidence," doesn't make my worldview false and your's true.
A funny thing happened on the way to my next blogpost.
I did a google search, hoping that I wouldn't have to type out the chapter from the book I have been reading. Lo and behold! I found the site of an evolutionist (he appeared to be a theistic evolutionist, btw) that included a point by point (so we're falsely told) refutation of many of the chapters in the book, including the one that deals with the foolishness of Darwinism.
But when I started reading the refutation, the person started out with a lie! An absolute, undeniable lie! It might take some time to counter-refute all that is written, but I will take my time and start with the obvious lie that the "refuter" put forth in a blogpost. I plan to post it either today or tomorrow.
Yes. I will surprise you all by posting this person's refutation of the chapter. But then, I will counter-refute a lot of what he said, as well as the lies and misinterpretations he put forth, too.
Just the fact that what he left out at the beginning of the article speaks volumes (IMHO) about how far Darwinists will go in lying about other people's quotes and books to make themselves look somehow "smarter", I guess.
Phronk, if you have tired of reading here and think that you have the absolute truth for what life is all about, then have fun going on your merry way.
Everything that you accused me of could also be said of you! You are stuck in your own beliefs (or, probably more likely what was spoon-fed to you by Darwiniacs), and you do not appear to be willing to branch out and see other possibilities. What you presume to be truth is just as much a faith position as what I have gleaned to be truth. The difference is that I have the infallible Word of God to back me up in my beliefs whereas you only have the word of a fallible man who lived over 150 years ago; a man who may have been sincere, but was sincerely wrong. But you go ahead and continue to believe in that fallible man's ramblings. I'll stick to the Man of Truth.
Boo said, "If what you meant by "taxonomic group" was different orders or phyla arising from each other, that is not how evolution works. If a bird laid an egg and out came something that was biologically closer to a cat than a bird, that would provide strong evidence against the current theory of evolution. Evolution branches, it doesn't randomly jump to something completely different."
But even with the "branching" of the theory of evolution, the points that Meyers makes in his paper include "the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms."
Meyers wrote:
" The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time.
To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna (Miklos 1993, Erwin et al. 1997:132, Steiner & Reitner 2001, Conway Morris 2003b:510, Valentine et al. 2003:519-520). Further, several recent discoveries and analyses suggest that these morphological gaps may not be merely an artifact of incomplete sampling of the fossil record (Foote 1997, Foote et al. 1999, Benton & Ayala 2003, Meyer et al. 2003), suggesting that the fossil record is at least approximately reliable (Conway Morris 2003b:505).
As a result, debate now exists about the extent to which this pattern of evidence comports with a strictly monophyletic view of evolution (Conway Morris 1998a, 2003a, 2003b:510; Willmer 1990, 2003). Further, among those who accept a monophyletic view of the history of life, debate exists about whether to privilege fossil or molecular data and analyses. Those who think the fossil data provide a more reliable picture of the origin of the Metazoan tend to think these animals arose relatively quickly--that the Cambrian explosion had a “short fuse.” (Conway Morris 2003b:505-506, Valentine & Jablonski 2003). Some (Wray et al. 1996), but not all (Ayala et al. 1998), who think that molecular phylogenies establish reliable divergence times from pre-Cambrian ancestors think that the Cambrian animals evolved over a very long period of time--that the Cambrian explosion had a “long fuse.” This review will not address these questions of historical pattern. Instead, it will analyze whether the neo-Darwinian process of mutation and selection, or other processes of evolutionary change, can generate the form and information necessary to produce the animals that arise in the Cambrian. This analysis will, for the most part, 2 therefore, not depend upon assumptions of either a long or short fuse for the Cambrian explosion, or upon a monophyletic or polyphyletic view of the early history of life.
I apologize if I used the incorrect terminology.
Perhaps I should have used the term "taxonomic category," or "taxonomic classification."
According to dictionary.com:
speciation: The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
taxonomic category:
n : animal or plant group having natural relations [syn: taxonomic group, taxon]
tax·on ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tksn)
n. Biology pl. tax·a (tks)
A taxonomic category or group, such as a phylum, order, family, genus, or species.
[New Latin, back formation from taxonomy.]
Main Entry: tax·on
Pronunciation: 'tak-"sän
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural taxa /-s&/ also tax·ons
1 : a taxonomic group or entity
2 : the name applied to a taxonomic group in a formal system of nomenclature
no·men·cla·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nmn-klchr, n-mnkl-)
n.
A system of names used in an art or science: the nomenclature of mineralogy.
The procedure of assigning names to the kinds and groups of organisms listed in a taxonomic classification: the rules of nomenclature in botany.
*******
About the new post that I planned to do and the Darwinist caught in a lie. The person picked out a few sentences (completely ignoring several important paragraphs before them) and claimed that the author started the chapter with those sentences. It was a blatant lie meant to make the author look foolish and/or "unscientific." The paragraphs that preceded the sentences that the "refuter" chose to focus on were quite important to the point(s) of the original author.
Perhaps it would be a waste of my time. Phronk is no longer interested in the debate here, you want to stick to your guns about "theistic" evolution, even when the Darwinists probably smirk behind your back about such a notion, and Juan is hung up on his "logical fallacy" arguments.
It would have made a great conversation piece though. More evidence and proof of the typical display of dishonesty from the Darwinist camp...
"...and Juan is hung up on his "logical fallacy" arguments."
This has to be the funniest answer from you that I ever got, thanks Christine.
I am like that, I sometimes get hung up trying for logical consistency and looking at evidence. Nobody is perfect, I suppose.
Maybe I should give up those earthly, unimportant things and accept Jesus.
Phronk is probably gone by now, but his point is exactly where I was going. You wouldn't accept evidence that contradicts what you believe now, even if you saw it yourself. Think about that, Christine, doesn't it seem at least a little bit insane to you?
The title of this thread is very revealing: "Why I CAN'T Accept Evolution..." That really says it all, and you have proved it in all your posts.
Boo and phronk have hammered their points home to you time and again. The facts are there. Christine. If you can't accept them, that doesn't necessarily make you right; it only makes you delusional.
As always, you never answer the questions directly. You circumvent them (the rant against Canada is typical), and when you're in a corner, ignore them. For someone who has the backing of the Great Celestial One, you're doing a poor job.
And you still haven't answered why the processes of microevolution cannot apply to the macro. You've come closer to doing so here than you ever have, but as has been shown, your arguments cannot stand by themselves.
OTOH, it's good to know that nothing has changed in my absence.
Post a Comment