Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.

My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that
the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-)

A wonderful lady I'm sure. My mother also did not believe in evolution.
She always said "Man did not descend from Apes" She was right on that
count, but wrong about evolution.

The theory has stood the test of time. So many other concepts and
measurements corroborate with it, and none disprove it. If it is wrong,
then most of what we know about the universe is wrong. There will always
be details that may indicate that something here or there needs an
update. But the basic concept and most of the details has survived much
more rigorous testing than the reference material of those who declare
it wrong.


And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved
not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be,
capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not
random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within
a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-)

I'm not sure how that disproves anything regarding the theory. In fact,
those things we are tinkering with are just an extension of the theory
in the end. Where the pressure to mutate - and therefore change - comes
from is not necessarily important i the end, but say we're talking about
sheep with human organs in them. Ever wonder what happens to the
embryo's and young ones that didn't have the right attributes?


How about "string theory", something that cannot even be
tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing
string theories - all "logically self-consistent"????

Lots more than that, even. More flavors than Baskin-Robbins. I can't
really speculate a lot on string theory. String always seemed like a
"just so" story to me.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -