Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:18:33 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Ron;
Ron Hoggan wrote:
> Hi William, Although this isn't my belief, I think that most folks
> would say that the use of the term evolution may be somewhat
> anti-religious or at least neutral regarding religion. There just
> aren't many religions that push the concept of evolution.
My point of view is that any belief based on faith is a religion,
whether it is officially recognized as such or not. Compared to science,
which is based on observable evidence.
>
> For instance, despite the arguments that evolution has accelerated
> since the beginning of the Neolithic, based on retention of lactase
> well into adulthood, in several isolated regions of the world, the
> overall length of the GI tract is still quite similar, the vestigial
> appendix is the rule, and comparisons with species that are better
> equipped to consume neolithic grains, for instance, show enormous
> differences in digestive tracts. I don't think that we need to deny
> evolution to gain credibility for the principles that support the
> Paleo died.
((died eh? My proofreading ain't perfect, but I don' think I've done
that. Yet.
Vive le paleolithic! ;) ))
>
It might also be seen as and adjustment well within the capability of
the human body, rather then an evolved adaptation.
William
|
|
|