 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Richard Franks
|
| | | Hi, (...) If you think of the number of animals that have existed over the previous X million years, and the small fraction of these whose remains have survived to exist as fossils, and the smaller fraction of these which actually have been found (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I just do not see it that way, except to the level of having faith in the basic evidence of one's senses, in the chain of verifiabillty (I am reasonably certain that Brazil exists based on verifiability), and in the prowess of logic. No theory (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) And the improvements often come in big jumps -- or lots of little jumps. It happens when a gene successfully strays away from the local maxima that it's been stuck on and climbs to a new local maxima. In n-dimensional space, there are very few (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Dave Low
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Franks writes: Some more thoughts: (...) Here's another "convenient" explanation. Life consists of the most successful organisms as constrained by environment and history. Obviously some organisms are very (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
