From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:09:57 GMT

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>Her name is Lynn Margulis.

	Thank you. And she is majoring at ...

>That's debatable. I'd say formation of a new species qualifies as
>macro (although different (and conflicting) definitions abound. In
>any case, big deal -- it's still speciation.

	Hmmm... I would appreciate if I would know more about this particular
	case and what tests have been made. 

>Sorry Antti, you can close your eyes and hold your breath but the
>rocks aren't going to go away. I thought it was especially neat
>that you accused me of lying, then quoted the materal that
>supported my point directly below your accusation. Here's a hint:
>other people aren't blinded by your infantile religious dogma
>and might notice that that really makes you look like an idiot. 

	Thank you. But I'm not an evolutionist. If I were then I would claim
	what looks like an idiot actually IS an idiot. I'm not blinded by 
	anyone, I have thought like that always, and I have been an atheist, 
	too. Does it say anything that I almost ignored your supporting 
	material ? It was because it didn't support your claim at all. What do
	you know about those animals' sex-life ? I.e what makes them two 
	separate species ? How can you prove it ?

>What does it need to tell about their reproduction? Paleontologists
>define species in terms of morphology because reproduction cannot
>be directly tested. Even if all these forms were capable of inter-
>breeding, it is still an example of modification with descent. In
>this case, however, the two forms are different enough morphologi-
>cally that it is almost certain they were good species. 

	OK. That is what I wanted to know ! But, again, perhaps there were  
	three different species. This is happening today, too (Loxia 
	pytyopsittacus - L.scotica - L. curvirostra). It's impossible to say
	if they are three distinct species or if scotica is pytyopsittacus' or
	curvirostra's subspecies. In English we talk about Crossbills. The 
	point is, how can you be so sure of species that have been extinct for
	a long time when nobody knows any solution for our current examples ?

>a better biologist than Darwin was. Funny, Darwin revolutionized bioliogy
>and all you can do is whine because you don't like his theory. If 
>Darwin didn't provide the dog(ma), there would be nothing for fleas like
>yourself to parasitise.

	No, I said that I am equally authorized, perhaps better (we know more
	now much more about things in general than in his time). No, this is 
	not the question of liking, this is that I have found that the 
	available facts don't support evolution theory. What I don't like is 
	the attitude that everything is proven. 
>Ooh, someone on the net is against evolution; I'm trembling. Where's
>their theory and the evidence for it?

	Better ask them themselves. They are Menem and Norrblad. 

>>Still you talk as if all biologists were for evolution. 

>The overwhelming majority are -- to deny this is to be seriously
>lacking in a grasp of biology.

	Science is no democracy ! Still many people are against the idea. But, 
	most biologists agree, because they have a fear to be laughed at. Do you
	think I, for instance, walk in the biology department to challenge 
	everyone to discuss about evolution ? No, I haven't told it to anyone in
	my department. Why ? Because then they would misunderstand me as a 
	supporter of young earth or other nonsense.  

	The real biologist has rubber-boots that are never dry. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins