Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- From: Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Jul 2006 00:21:09 +0100
Ken Down wrote:
I repeat, the point is that in the wild and without human intervention, you
would not get such a wide variety of dogs. The wide variety of dogs cannot,
therefore, be taken as evidence for evolution as a producer of species.
The wide variety of dogs is a refutation of this silly argument:
"Sure, evolution can make small changes like changing the
colour of a bird's wings or the length of a monkey's tail,
but it can't do anything really big because there's a limit
to how much variation can be produced by small changes. You
could never get from a housecat to a puma just by accumulating
small changes."
and not of this one:
"Sure, evolution can make small changes, or even rather big
ones, but *natural selection* could never bring about big
changes, because I say so."
--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- References:
- Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- From: Alec Brady
- Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- From: Alec Brady
- Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- Prev by Date: Re: Completely and utterly off-topic, but...
- Next by Date: Re: Adultery and Sin
- Previous by thread: Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- Next by thread: Re: New dilemma in creation/evolution/ID...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading