[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.
Jack
----- 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 --
macroevolution.
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
below?
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
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/acad/CTAHRInAction/Dec_05/caterpillar.asp.
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
now.
Other related posts:
