Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mazeman
I agree with both definitions, sort of. These defintions, though, inject a hint of Darwinism

I'm always amazed at those who will not see what is right in front of their noses. Both definitions "inject a hint of Darwinism" because one leads to the other. Beneficial mutations are preserved in populations. Over considerable time, an entirely new organism may emerge that is more biologically "fit" than its predecessor.

And no, I will not look up "species" for you. Do a Google search...or write your own darned dictionary, as you seem to know everything anyway.

46 posted on 11/17/2005 11:08:50 PM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Aracelis

"I'm always amazed at those who will not see what is right in front of their noses. Both definitions "inject a hint of Darwinism" because one leads to the other."

Right in front of our noses? Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident?
"One leads to another"? That's the whole leap in assumption that we're arguing about. I guess I need to study Webster's more thoroughly for a more in-depth analysis of this controversy.


49 posted on 11/17/2005 11:17:51 PM PST by Mazeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson