Re: Evolution in a microcosm

["Anthony Baker" <anthony_w_baker@hotmail.com>]

Zack W. wrote:
> I find it interesting that it is the proponents of macro-evolution who 
> >have felt it necessary to bring in religion.

The reason it is often necessary to bring up religion in discussions about 
evolution is this:

When one dismisses evolution in favor of a strict "creationist" view, or 
really ANY non-evolutionary view, the necessity of a "creator" (read 'god') 
becomes obvious.  Without "macro-evolution" creating many species out of a 
few common ancestors, logic dictates that all species currently in existance 
must have ALWAYS existed.  Either that, or a "creator" of some sort must 
have created species X at time Y.
A "creator" = religion. Simple.

In addition, as far as being able to accept one view over another, I agree 
it can be difficult.
Consider the following:
One either "accepts", "studies", "believes" that such and such evidence 
points toward evolution / speciation...
-or-
One "accepts", "studies", "believes" in a divine creator that created all 
extant species, making any evidence of speciation / evolution, no matter how 
compelling, IMPOSSIBLE.

We all just have to accept that
1) _No_one_ on this list is going to change anyone elses' mind
2) This arguement could very well continue on forever
3) As Bailin said, this arguement can cause loss of respect
4) We share more in common (apistos) then we might think

Therefor I suggest we stick to apistos and dwarfs, or at the very least, use 
the word "phylogeny" as Prof. Kahlow suggests!!

-Tony



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.