Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version of
Gabriel
wrote:
: On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:19:39 -0400, Gabriel
: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:22:22 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
: >wrote:
: >
: >: On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:17:19 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>
: >: enriched this group when s/he wrote:
: >:
: >: >Ye Old One wrote:
: >: >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:16:54 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>
: >: >> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
: >: >>
: >: >>> And evolution and biology do not
: >: >>> belong in the same sentence
: >: >>
: >: >> Of course they do.
: >: >>
: >: >> Evolution is the basis of all modern biology.
: >: >
: >: >Somehow that suggest biology needs evolution.
: >: >
: >: >Which is false.
: >:
: >: Biology doesn't get far without it.
: >
: > Biology does just fine without the imagined belief of
: >their *version* of evolution
:
: Actually, if you talk to real biologists, you will find it doesn't.
You're free to detail exactly *how* the evolution of
bacteria to adapt into more bacteria falls apart when you throw
out the belief that fish can evolve into a man over generations.
:
: > - the one where fish evolved into
: >human beings.
:
: Did take over half a billion years.
:
: > But dogs evolving/adapting into different dogs?
:
: That distinction is rather arbiter.
:
: >Mosquitoes evolving/adapting into different mosquitoes? That
: >version of evolution remains perfectly intact when you throw out
: >the imagined version that tries to hide behind it.
:
: If you want to talk dogs or mosquitoes then you need to talk about
: great apes not man.