(none)

[Richard Hall]

John Grehan wrote:

> This fact just means that the science of history cannot be evaluated by the
> same criteria as direct observation or repeated experiments
> (manipulations), not that its less scientific.


Whatever.



> Maybe, maybe not. These empirical (and not so empirical - number 4
> fundamental is a theoretically very loaded term) observations may certainly
> be used in making extrapolations, but these extrapolations are themselves
> subject to assumptions that themselves reflect theoretical bias, so I still
> feel my statement that the speculations made about these particular events
> have
>  no empirical basis.


Whatever.


> >Natural selection
> >says that existence will follow the vector of maximum reproductive
> >success.
> 
> No problem with that description. It agrees with my understanding I think.
> 
> >The gilled members were not wiped out
> 
> they had to be within the population upon which selection was supposed to
> have been taking place, at least as I would understand it.


You said that you had no problem with my definition of natural
selection, and yet here you are talking about death again.  The
evolution of a new form does not necessarily imply the extinction of its
predecessor.


Bored of vague, abstract objections,

Rikki Hall