Jim Cobabe wrote:

> Adaptation that can be properly characterized as "mimicry" in plants is
> indicative of some mechanism or force that cannot be accounted for
> within the current domain of evolutionary philosophy.

This may be your opinion, but it's not the view held by scientists. Why can't it
be accounted for by the theory of evolution? (I have never heard of "evolutionary
philosophy," incidentally).

>  My belief is that
> the science of evolution cannot accomodate or explain the gradual
> development of complex subsystems that confer no adaptive advantage to
> the organism before they are wholly in place and fully functional.

That's because that's not what evolution claims. According to evolution, any
mutation is neutral. It's what happens when the environment changes, for whatever
reason, that bestows upon one mutation a beneficial nature or a harmful nature.
That's what "survival of the fittest" means, and it's a fundamental part of
evolution.  I don't mean to make this sound like I'm throwing a snit, but if you
don't understand evolution, don't criticize it. If you have questions, sub to
Eyring-L and faithful, belieiving Latter-day Saint scientists would be happy to
answer them and/or point you to appropriate resources.

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick
himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to