[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders

[rmcder at PEOPLEPC.COM (R. McDermott)]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Uretsky" <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: ID defenders


> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, R. McDermott wrote (in part):
>
>
> > than trying to shove ...  macroevolution (that
> > complex organisms evolved from simple) down their throats when these are
> > NOT
> > demonstrable (or at least I haven't seen it)?
> ...
>
> > So far as I know, so is macroevolution [unequivocally wrong].
> ______________________________snip______________________________________
>        As pointed out recently in Nature Magazine, there is an
> embarrasment of riches in the examples of the development of the species
> Homo over the past few million years.  One example that was popularized is
> "Lucy".  There are, of course, many other examples.  Consult your local
> paleonthologist.

Is it even remotely possible, Jack, that these examples might represent
different organisms that developed and died out rather than a progressive
"improvement" of a single organism?  How does one test the hypothesis?
Sure, it's a likely explanation for what we can observe, but can we be
certain that there is no other possible explanation for the observations?
Would it be inconsistent, for example, for these to be "dead ends" stemming
FROM a "human" precursor?  Tied up in all this, of course, is our degree of
confidence in dating technology.