 | | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) I still have a quibble, to wit, with the use of "progression" and/or the use of "simple to more complicated". That's the way that it seems to have come out in this case, but that's not necessarily an implication. If conditions change radically (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible! —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | (...) Ok - REVISED AGAIN: 1) Do strata (layers of sediment) support a progressive, over millennia, approach which reveals the progression (simple forms leading to more complicated forms, or vice versa: one type changing into another type) of life (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible! —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) IANAP (I am not a paleontologist), but I'm not sure that the fossil record shows either of these things. It shows the spatial and historical pattern of life on earth (what lived where, when), but we can only infer the evolutionary process from (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible! —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | (...) IANAP either, however: (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible! —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) and what little does is some 40 years old--the palaeontological equivalent of considering an IBM PC-XT "cutting edge" in 2001, just because it's only a dozen or so years old. It's selective misinformation--Kitts's work is even older, mostly in (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
