Changes

:Most of that post is simply assertion.  When Darwin proposed it, much of it's opposition came from scientists, so I'm not sure that they ''were'' convinced that quickly.  Of course it has never been observed—but as it hasn't been, then it's taken on ''faith''.  The "extrapolation" may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's time, but genetics actually shows that the extrapolation is invalid.  All the ''observed'' mechanisms for variation do ''not'' introduce new genetic information, but tend to destroy it.  Yet scientists "extrapolate" from this destruction of information to ''generation'' of information!  That's not extrapolation—that's ''blind'' faith (i.e. faith ''contrary'' to the evidence).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:Most of that post is simply assertion.  When Darwin proposed it, much of it's opposition came from scientists, so I'm not sure that they ''were'' convinced that quickly.  Of course it has never been observed—but as it hasn't been, then it's taken on ''faith''.  The "extrapolation" may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's time, but genetics actually shows that the extrapolation is invalid.  All the ''observed'' mechanisms for variation do ''not'' introduce new genetic information, but tend to destroy it.  Yet scientists "extrapolate" from this destruction of information to ''generation'' of information!  That's not extrapolation—that's ''blind'' faith (i.e. faith ''contrary'' to the evidence).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::You are of course entitled to carrying on believing that series of old chestnuts - but you are simply wrong. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:03, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::You are of course entitled to carrying on believing that series of old chestnuts - but you are simply wrong. And of course I forgot to mention the other direct evidence, in the form of series of fossils. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:03, 28 February 2008 (EST)