From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: evolution
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:25:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <40762.2B609906@puddle.fidonet.org>
     Jessie.Bailey@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Jessie Bailey) writes:

>First of all, I would like to define to you MY definition of
>evolution--the continuous change and adaption throughout the existence
>of this planet.

It's good that you state up front what your definition is.  However,
in science it is best to use terms with their commonly accepted
definitions unless you have compelling reasons to redefine them.  In
this case, contemporary biologists define evolution as the change
(over time) of allele frequencies in a population.  Evolution also
refers to the fact that organisms are related to each other by virtue
of common ancestry, and also to theories of how the changes (in allele
frequency and hence phenotype) come about.  If you'd like me to
elaborate on the meaning of any of these terms, please ask.

>...  However, I do not believe in DARWIN's theory of evolution. I
>have heard enough facts on this theory to prove to myself that it is,
>beyond a shadow of a doubt, untrue.

It is principally the above statements that made me respond to this
post.  Let me include also a similar statement from Rebekah Lawrence:

In article <40005.2B5E58FB@puddle.fidonet.org>, 
    Rebekah.Lawrence@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Rebekah Lawrence) wrote:

}...I am replying to your recent reply on my evolution article. ...
}You claimed that you were struggling with some of the same questions
}I was.  That is not the case.  You see, I have no questions. 

The sentiments that the two of you have expressed here are
antithetical to science.  If you wish to think as a scientist, you
must always be prepared to accept that whatever view you have on any
topic, that view may not be an accurate reflection of reality.  You
can always be wrong, so you should always be doubting, and you should
always have questions.  To close your mind is to cast science out the
window, regardless of how compelling your reasons for accepting a
conclusion. 

}uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!346!14.0!Rebekah.Lawrence
}Internet: Rebekah.Lawrence@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org

>But it has been proved that humans only use between 10 and 20 percent
>of their brain.

If you have any documentation of that anywhere, I'd like to know about
it.  Last fall I wrote an article for a newsletter in Arizona.  I was
asked to write the article in order to shed light on this commonly
held "fact".  I spent several hours pouring over many different
sources hoping to find even an inkling of where the "fact" came from,
and I was completely unsuccessful.  If you give me a snail mail
address, I can send you a copy of the article that I wrote.  I not
only described my search for the "fact", but I also explained why the
"fact" is currently unsupportable, and probably false.

>For example, researchers are able to estimate the age of our earth at
>approximately 5 billion years old,

Be careful with your terms.  It is not "estimated" that the earth is 5
billion years old; it has been *measured* that the earth is at least 5
billion years old.

>Well, God created Adam and Eve, and he created them as adults--not as
>children, so isn't possible that he also created the earth aged?  Just
>a thought.

It's a thought that many people have had.  As science, the prospect is
useless, because we can't distinguish between an "aged" universe and
an "apparently aged" universe by definition.  Many also think that the
prospect is bad theology, since it accepts as a premise that God is
deceptive. 

>uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!346!14.0!Jessie.Bailey
>Internet: Jessie.Bailey@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)