Evolution is inevitable
Paul S. Winalski
winalski at gemcil.enet.dec.com
Tue Jun 7 17:35:49 EST 1994
In article <MARDER.227.2DF449A9 at agri.huji.ac.il>,
MARDER at agri.huji.ac.il (Jonathan B. Marder) writes:
|>The theory of evolution is not only a GOOD explanation of the origin of the
|>world as we know it, but is also a necessary consequence of the laws of
|>physics. It is difficult to see how evolution could FAIL to occur given the
|>set of physical laws we accept to be true.
That's an awfully broad and sweeping assertion. Evolution certainly is
consistent with our current models of physics and chemistry, but it's a big
leap from consistent to necessary. Can you elaborate?
|>Thus if evolution is dismissed, it would also be necessary to completely
|>reshape our scientific knowledge and throw out vast areas of current physics
Suppose for a moment that evolution is not true. Give an example of a physical
or chemical law that would have to be thrown out.
Lest you mistake my intent, I am a firm believer in evolution. But I think
it may be going a bit far to say that it is a necessary consequence of physical
law. I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean by that.
More information about the Bioforum