[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Howdy Paul & all,
I've finally gotten caught up on all the emails and thought I might jump in
here with a quick responce.
Jack L
Archaeopteryx is the archetypal transitional fossil Yes is has been called
that, but if it has wings and feathers and flys then isn't it a bird? Plus your
MS has found other completely bird birds in layers they consider to be much
older, which should serve to destroy the idea of Archy as the transitional, you
need to find another. 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 SO, don't you think asking for a demonstration of the changing from
scales to feathers to be a reasonable request? They are after all completely
different things. And even if you could provide some kind of series of
transitional forms that still assumes that the geologic layers represend long
ages instead of a succesion of rapid burials in a short period of time . It
wouldn't matter how many transitional fossils are found in this series, the
creationists will simply repeat the exercise in ever smaller
increments. Calling something transitional, does not make it transitional. You
are assuming it to be transitional because you can imagine how it could be and
then you turn around and call it evidence to support your faith in evolution
and this faith is what caused you to view it as transitional in the first
place. A lovely little circle you've enslaved your mind with.
Yes Apo A-I Milano is microevolution and it is an enhancement So you can
prove that nobody had that gene before the 400 year old ancestor had it? That
it was actually something new and better and had not existed before? You got
alot of assumption going on here. And lots of these in succession and in
isolation eventually become a new species -- macroevolution. This is complete
speculation without any evidence - This is imagination only.
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? What the distinct kinds were and defining them is rather pointless and
impossible since none of us were there to see and catalog them. I would have
thought dolphins and whales were different kinds, but since it is possible for
them to breed, I guess my first thought would be wrong and that they are the
same kind. But your view of thier common ancestor is of course a bog, or the
sea, or a rock, or a volcanic undersea vent, or a comet, or deep space, or
space aliens or what, I can't really keep up with the endless speculation of
how to get the right chemicals together to produce
the first life. I have an Idea, why don't scientists just take some living
things and put them in a blender, turn it on for a while, then let it sit while
all the proper chemicals swim around together and form a new lifeform. Oh but
wait, it's really a lot more complicated than just having all the right
materials lying around together isn't it? Seems rather an insurmountable
problem. As Jack has said it's the first thing you need to address. All your
other evolutionary "evidence" is circular and pure imagination. If you'd like
to produce a short list of your best and most meaningful proofs of evolution, I
will respond to each as to why it is completely circular and/or imagination
only. Or do you conceed the point and reconise that you simply believe in
evolution and therefore interpret what you see from that vantage point.
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
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
Other related posts:
