Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: the missing link is evolution - (nf) Message-ID: <255@opus.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Mar-84 00:10:47 EST Article-I.D.: opus.255 Posted: Tue Mar 27 00:10:47 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 22-Mar-84 01:25:33 EST References: <6252@uiucdcs.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 25 With trepidation, I toss in my 2 cents worth (or less) on this. Miller has given a small list of allegedly out-of-order fossils showing evidence of human presence at the "wrong" time for evolution - i.e., allegedly indicating the presence of humans too early to be consistent with the evolution model. The fallacy should be obvious: How long is the list of fossils which ARE consistent with predictions of evolution theory? Well, a good clue is that it's not something that you're going to be able to post to net.misc! The preponderance of evidence still supports evolution theory. That there are anomalies in the evidence simply demonstrates that we don't understand everything - small surprise when you're trying to reconstruct a story of global proportions from evidence millions of years old... [Brief interlude. If you are religious, contemplate the marvelous wonder of the complexity of the universe. Give your God a little credit for not making something so simple that you can understand it all without taxing your marvelous brain that God also supposedly gave you. EOF] On the other hand, the proponderance of evidence still provides no support for creationism... One thing I have missed by tuning in late on this discussion - are "little green men from Ork" or whatever a euphemism for God? -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd