EVOLUTION. WAS: Brain Swelling

[Guest guest]

I'll try to explain my viewpoint without insulting you, but I'm not sure

I know how. But bear in mind that I'm trying.

1] Evolution is only a theory: True. [usually the rest of the

statement is, " ...and has never been proved. {also true}]

2] Generally the only person who ever says that does not really know

what it means, and us typically dismally lacking in a knowledge science

and how science works.

3] All that science provides of this nature are " only " theories; and

they are never " proved " . They are _supported_ by evidence [or not].

4] Example: That the earth is [MOL] spherical rather than flat is

" just " a theory; it has not been proved [in the ultimate scientific sense].

5] The theory that the earth is round is about as well supported as is

the theory of evolution.

Evolution in some form is literally accepted by the vast majority of the

better educated and more intelligent people on earth and is based upon

solid science, so it really doesn't need me [a person in neither of the

groups above] to support it. You are welcome to operate from any world

view that seems appropriate to you and you do not have to justify it to

me or anyone here. I'll claim the same privilege.

I won't ask that you accept evolution, but since you enjoy reading I

would suggest that THE PANDA'S THUMB by J. Gould would probably

be interesting to you. Better yet, the book he wrote with Niles

Eldridge that dealt with punctuated equilibrium [i think]. Darned if I

can remember the title.

Regards,

..

..

>

> Posted by: " cindy.seeley " cindy.seeley@...

> <mailto:cindy.seeley@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Brain%20Swelling>

> cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley>

>

>

> Mon Dec 8, 2008 6:23 am (PST)

>

> ,

> Although it is, and has been, taught in our public schools as the 'be

> all, end all', that doesn't change that it is still only a theory, the

> 'Theory of Evolution' (all of my biology books also stated it as

> such!)...please support yourself with non-ideological beliefs...It has

> become politically incorrect, if you will, to support any

> issues/statements based on 'divine intervention'

> , what some also

> consider a 'theory', although I, personally, do happen to believe...I

> won't use 'divine intervention' to support my statements and/or

> comments (which to this point I haven't either), if you won't use your

> belief in the 'theory of evolution' to support yours...any and all

> claims based on 'evolution' in the sense of Darwin's ideas

> loses all credibility, in my opinion (it just sounds like a good

> excuse to explain anything unknown away). I do however believe in an

> applicable definition of 'evolving', such as happens in our mental

> perspectives as we learn and remake ourselves and our opinions based

> on what we have learned/experienced. ;-)

>

>

>

> >

> > GOOD question IMHO. It no doubt was a heck of a lot less than our

> > ancestors got when they swam in the iodine rich oceans. So along the

> > line somewhere they had to adapt to much less iodine. Something

> called

> > evolution.

> >

> > Whatever the number I suspect it will be on the same order as the RDA;

> > not several hundred or several thousand higher.

> >

> >