-=> Quoting Sue Michaud to Richard Meic <=-
 SM> That it is a theory, I will agree.
Evolution is a weak hypotheses, it is not a theory.
A theory is something that is tested and is in agreement
with facts.
Consider this analogy:  In theory, you could make and market a
cordless phone with a range of several miles.  In practice, such
a phone is not practical.  It's not because radio waves don't
travel far enough, it's because such a thing would not be
competitive with cell phones.  If radio waves weren't known to
travel several miles, then you couldn't make such a cordless
phone even in theory.
Biological variation isn't known to have a range of "several
miles" (except in a degenerative direction).  Thousands of
generations of fruitflies in the lab under high rates of
selection and mutation fail to produce anything other than
fruitflies (and screwed up fruitflies).  Loss of genetic
complexity (extinction and shrinking genepools) in animal species
is high, and would still be very significant even without the
influence of man on the environment.  And, the few "good" mutations
that Evolutionists do point out are usually degenerative, such as
sickle-cell anemia.  Bottom line, there is NO clear example of an
animal species increasing in complexity.  NONE.  ZERO.  No
Evolution, but mountains of anti-Evolution.
 SM> I don't have to prove anything to anyone.
I have nothing to prove either.  But, the Evolutionist
does because he is the one claiming Evolution is true,
because he claims it is based on pure science, because
he claims it is certain enough that censorship of
opposing views is acceptable.  The trouble is Evolutionists
can't prove a thing.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0066
---------------