Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>> There have been some evolutionary experiments that have been done.
>>>   So, how many fish have they converted into cats like this?
>>>
>>>   (I hope you get the point.)
> 
>> It takes a long time to convert a fish into a cat. So?
> 
>> How many complete orbits of pluto have been observed? How do you know it 
>> is really orbiting the sun?
> 
>   Yes, both things are comparable in complexity.

No, of course not. But you haven't expressed why you think creating a 
new species over the course of a few weeks or a few years couldn't 
easily lead to creating a cat out of a fish over the course of a few 
million. All the mechanisms to make it happen are understood, and 
technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and 
non-living environments.

What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant 
TB is evolved from earlier TB? Do you believe that seedless grapes 
evolved from grapes with seeds? Do you believe that dogs evolved from 
wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)?  Just curious.

I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of 
evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence, have no alternate 
theory to propose that explains any of the evidence, and still say "I 
don't think it could be right." It just sounds a bit crazy to me.

But that's OK.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message