[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:51:02 +0100

Dear Paul,
Now you can see what I mean about being drawn into other areas of evolution 
before coming to a consensus about abiogenesis first. E.g. Transitionals and 
the definition of a kind. Again you show your ignorance of evolution by asking 
what did the kangaroo, or lemur or carnivorous caterpillars micro evolve from? 
Creationist's say that, as the fossil record confirms, that all the different 
kinds were created and that subsequent microevolution may have changed them a 
little e.g. alligators, kangaroos and dragonflies or a lot e.g. dogs, cats and 
monkeys but they still all  remained the same kind.  

Regarding 'Archy' as it is affectionately know is a bird. Just for minute Paul 
ask yourself why there are not an infinite number of transitional types spread 
right across the fossil record? Surely plain common sense tells you that it 
cannot just be the plain 'kinds' that got fossilised. Even Darwin was worried 
that he hadn't come across any and that his theory was dependant upon finding 
them. A recent curator of the Natural History Museum is on record as saying 
that he had never seen or heard of a transitional fossil; if you want the quote 
I can provide it. I think that had Darwin lived a lot longer he would have 
retracted his theory because the transitionals, as he envisioned, have never 
materialised. There are only a few listed as transitionals and of course 
creationists as well as others dispute them. You must remember that there a lot 
of scientists who do not accept evolution and who are not creationists. If your 
are right then there must be millions of indisputable transitionals. 
Creationists are, by-and-large, content with secular science's definition of 
what a kind is - so don't bother to go down that road with me - but by all 
means check it out for yourself. 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:59 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  Jack L

  Archaeopteryx is the archetypal transitional fossil but of course your side 
of the table just shifts ground and calls for a transitional fossil between it 
and the birds or between it and the lizards. It wouldn't matter how many 
transitional fossils are found in this series, the creationists will simply 
repeat the exercise in ever smaller increments.

  Yes Apo A-I Milano is microevolution and it is an enhancement. And lots of 
these in succession and in isolation eventually become a new species -- 

  Since no creationist to the best of my knowledge, has ever given a definition 
of 'kind', I doubt that you would break the mould but we live in hope. Are you 
prepared to offer such a definition? If you are, (or even if you're not) which 
Arkian 'kind' is the ancestor (by microevolution of course!) of the kangaroo? 
Or of the lemur? Or of the hawaiian carnivorous caterpillar as per the snippet 

  I also have an historical perspective on the subject of evolution from the 
creationist point of view. Are you interested? Might give you some ideas.

  Paul D

    Snippet from 

    Our state is home to 350 known species of Hyposmocoma. Most of these 
species are endemic to a single island. Since first identifying the Maui 
caterpillar, Rubinoff and Haines have found different species of snail-eating 
Hyposmocoma on Molokai, Kauai, and the Big Island, revealing how our islands 
are hotbeds of evolution in which new organisms and survival strategies arise 
at a remarkable rate.

  Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it 

Other related posts: