Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 10:28:59 12/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2001 at 12:27:57, Russell Reagan wrote: >On December 24, 2001 at 18:06:26, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>No, some theories can be rigoriously proven. > >Why are they still "theories" then? I am not sure they still are, Darwin proved them pretty good using observations. I suspsect genetics or the find of fossils can finally confirm the "theories", if they haven't all ready :) >>Very few educated people in the western world do not believe in Darwin's >>evolutionary theories, some choose not to because of religious reasons. >>But it has been _the_ accepted theory for the last 160 years. > >The fact that many people believe it contributes nothing to it's validity. That is certainly true :) But take a look at chimps, gorillas and orangutangs, there is an obvious connection there, you hardly need to know about genetics to see that. The idea of a common ancestor is just logical, combine that with the survival of the fittest principle and you have a pretty convincing theory:) >My >experience has been that it is rare when a distinction between macro evoltion >and micro evolution is made by the "educated" people, and when you can sell >micro evolution to a 1st grader, and then tell him about macro evolution later >on down the line, and call the entire thing evolution, it's no suprise that the >majority of people believe in such a thing. What is "micro" and "macro" evolution? The only alternative "theory" I know of is the story of Adam and Eva, and the list of observations that disproves that story is endless. If you feel you have some proof against Darwin I'd be happy to see it (but then lets start a new thread somewhere else :). Regards -Sune
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.