Re: The correct definition.



[M]adman wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ECLvl.16824$v8.1710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:0qzvl.16569$i9.14497@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

What should be the correct definition for evolution?

"The processes that allows life to continue despite the conditions
on the earth. These conditions allow adaptations to take place in a
linear fashion thereby allowing the original kind to survive and
have many sub-kinds that are each one after their original kind"

There is no strong evidence supporting the idea that there was more
than one "original kind."

There was more then one kind. Science is on the wrong track IMHO.
Science has over looked something or there is something yet to be
discovered that will bring what we already know in better focus.

In fact i see two (possibly three with the Cambrian) separate and
distinct creations. The first creation much larger and much older
with many created kinds that gave rise to others after their own
kind. These created kinds adapted as the earth changed over the
eons. Some survived the meteorite impacts, the ice ages, and the
upheavals the earth has suffered to continue the life cycle.

Then, a second (or possibly third) creation in the garden of Eden as
described in the Hebrew bible (and other texts) which happened much
latter. This second creation marks the last eon or earth age that we
are currently in. We seem to be living during the last part of the
final eon according to some traditions. For instance, the Myan's
traditions to name but one.

Most do not want to admit these records the ancients left behind have
some truth to them. So by you clinging on to this relativly 'new'
idea of evolution you only hinder science in it's discovery of
exactly what has happened in the past.

Pure bilge. Unsubstantiated opinion based mostly on a fevered
imagination. You offer no analysis whatever.

Not true. The texts substantiate and are here.

What reason is there for what is recorded to be a lie? Why would these
ancient peoples take heavy stone, sit down and carve these stones with
stories? Just to lie to you all these years latter? Highly unlikely.

Yet ancient societies did just that, as can be seen in the myriads of
myths of all types in societies around the world. Certainly you don't
think all of those myths are true, do you? If so, how do you account
for the mutually exclusive nature of many of them?


What we see is general evolution punctuated by some rather severe
catastrophes. The Cambrian explosion (so-called) arrived on the
heels of a planetary freeze-over. The Permian extinction coincides
with the Siberian traps vulcanism. There is a Jurassic extinction
that is not so severe as the K-T extinction that came much later.

All the more reason that severe interuptions of the evolutionary process
stops the progress of evolution which claims it needs lots of time.
Aparantly you have had many interuptions in evolution for evolution to be
true.

And those interruptions are seen in the fossil record. They did not
result in 100% extinction of all species.

ne preceded by a fair number
of intermediates and we arrive with genetics that demonstrate beyond
reasonable doubt our common ancestry with the other great apes.

Reasonable doubt permeates evolutionary theory.

Of course. Reasonable doubt permeates ALL of the sciences. Hence
science's constant efforts (and successes) at learning more every day.

Common design could also be what you are observing instead.

"Could also be" is meaningless without evidence. The only thing that
ancient myths are evidence for is man's imagination.


If human and ape were isolated with their genetic similarities then you
would have a point. But they are not. You can find many species that are
unrelated with genetic similarities

So add genetics to the list of things you don't understand.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... These created kinds adapted as the earth changed over the ... a second creation in the garden of Eden as ... What we see is general evolution punctuated by some rather severe ... All the more reason that severe interuptions of the evolutionary process ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... These created kinds adapted as the earth changed over the ... a second creation in the garden of Eden as ... What we see is general evolution punctuated by some rather severe ... All the more reason that severe interuptions of the evolutionary process ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... These created kinds adapted as the earth changed over the ... What we see is general evolution punctuated by some rather severe ... The Permian extinction coincides ... It knocks out a large number of species and then, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent Design is for lying cowards who deny their God
    ... >Those clever Americans did know of one reason to believe that the ... and think that this is their reason for denying evolution. ... the earth probably was, at the beginning, very much the same as it was ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Even Older Than We Are
    ... slander in lieu of reason and evidentiary based explanations. ... As for proof, I've given it to you,but you have no way to prove evolution, ... The Earth is not flat, the sun doesn't rotate around the earth, and the moon ...
    (soc.senior.issues)