--- Jay Banks <[log in to unmask]>  $B$+$i$N%a%C%;!<%8 (B
 $B!' (B

> Given the evidence, or rather, the complete lack of
> it, it is *almost*
> easier to believe that a UFO came down and "seeded"
> the planet than it is to
> believe in evolution as it was taught to us all in
> science class. -- Jay
>
Jay,

I won't condemn you outright as some others have done. I
don't think that the mainstream today is necessarily to
believe that Darwin was absolutely correct. There is now a
growing field called epigenetics, which claims that some
of the mechanisms are not as Darwin assumed. But on a very
basic level, I find it hard to disbelieve (from
experience) that children inherit traits from their
parents, and that our makeup is largely guided by
inherited factors. Tall people tend to have tall children,
people with blond hair to give birth to children with
blond air, etc. And clearly, if you start feeding a cow
meat or giving a cat grain, you're not going to get a very
healthy cow or a very healthy cat.

So I think the argument over origins is not necessarily
the same as the argument over whether we have a genetic
legacy that has an impact on the food that is correct fo
rus. I think it is entirely possible that human beings
were created in part by some mechanisn that is not
Darwinian. Maybe somebody did genetic engineering, or
maybe we were bred in the way that dogs are bred today.
But that doesn't negate the fact that we are affected by
the DNA we receive.

Jens Wilkinson