User Tools

Site Tools


evolution

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
evolution [2018/04/10 10:35]
admin
evolution [2018/04/10 10:38]
glennd
Line 1: Line 1:
 It's real, and not fully understood. Without it, there would be no field of biology. There is simply too much evidence and it provides too much explanatory power to be wrong. Bacteria rapidly reacting to new, synthetic chemicals (new information),​ ring species, etc... it lines up too well to the data to be far off target. ​ It's real, and not fully understood. Without it, there would be no field of biology. There is simply too much evidence and it provides too much explanatory power to be wrong. Bacteria rapidly reacting to new, synthetic chemicals (new information),​ ring species, etc... it lines up too well to the data to be far off target. ​
  
-The deep Appalachian ​mindset rejects it in several incoherent ways:+The funamentalist ​mindset rejects it in several incoherent ways:
   - Rejecting that new information can happen in the process of mutation (obviously and demonstrably false)   - Rejecting that new information can happen in the process of mutation (obviously and demonstrably false)
   - Rejecting that enough time has happened for speciation (yet accepting that all of the species we see came from a handful of original species on the Ark 4000 years ago)   - Rejecting that enough time has happened for speciation (yet accepting that all of the species we see came from a handful of original species on the Ark 4000 years ago)
evolution.txt · Last modified: 2018/04/10 21:08 by admin