From: "Robert Comer" 

> It's a proof of evolution, it doesn't prove evolution. But it supports it.

Err, that's not logical, it is a proof, or it isn't.  It does support it I agree.

> And the logic of natural selection is, well, logical. This is a completely
> abstract proposition. Darwin wrote it that way, and then found evidence in
> nature to support the proposition.

Yep, and I never argued against that.

--
Bob Comer


"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:43831172$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> It's a proof of evolution, it doesn't prove evolution. But it supports it.
>
> And the logic of natural selection is, well, logical. This is a completely
> abstract proposition. Darwin wrote it that way, and then found evidence in
> nature to support the proposition.
>
> At the time of Darwin 'Young Earth' was the assumption, Darwin found sea
> shells high in the Andes and wondered how they got there. The conclusion
> that the earth  might be very much older than 6000 years was part of the
> insight that lead to evolution.
>
> Paul
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:4382838c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Yes actually they have calculated mutation rates and the like in order
>>> to
>>> prove it possible.
>>
>> That's not a proof of evolution, that's just statistics.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>> "Geo"  wrote in message
news:43827fcb{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Yes actually they have calculated mutation rates and the like in order
>>> to
>>> prove it possible.
>>>
>>> Geo.
>>>
>>> "Robert Comer"  wrote
in message
>>> news:43814872$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Nobody has used a math proof on evolution either...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bob Comer
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5