Wireless,

I have to admit something to you now. I am not, myself, overly fond of evolutionary theory, lol. I do think that it is our best "guess" though. I have seen you talk about your macro cycles over and over again, so I proceeded on this inquiry to find out just what you are talking about by offering counters and asking for clarifications. The problem is, you have spent more time trying to label me and less time actually offering any evidence of your theories except for perhaps some very broad based comments.

I regret to inform you that, although I do think that there are probably flaws with evolution, you have failed to convince me that somehow your cycles are somehow a better idea. Life isn't a computer program, Wireless, lol. And, yes, there are cycles on this planet...we have warm periods, we have cool periods. In fact, there are a ton of cycles on this planet. What is rain but evaporated water coming from oceans, which, in turn, gets poured back into the oceans? However, there are some things that are simply not cyclical and you have yet to come up with one single reference that proves your cycle theories, especially in regards to evolution, in all this time.

I do have one more question for you because your recessive gene = degenerative statement has me a little puzzled. Why do you equate recessive genes as being degenerative? A recessive gene is merely a trait that has less dominance to another. So, brown eyes are a dominant trait with blue and green eyes as being recessive to it. Does that make having blue or green eyes a sign of degeneration? Also, some diseases are passed on as a dominant trait, ie Marfan Syndrome, some types of diabetes, Huntington's disease and so on. Now, if genetic disease is an aberration of the gene, it would be degenerative by your definition, would it not? Then why are the genes for these diseases dominant if recessive = degenerative?

Thank you.

Stephanie



In every man there is something wherein I may learn of him, and in that I am his pupil.--Ralph Waldo Emerson