Based on your reply I don't think you are understanding the basic point I am
making.
I am not arguing about "the innumerable transitional forms"*, or am I arguing
about observing macro evolution or about the beginnings of the cosmos (as a
reply that was not mail to the rest of the list suggested).
This is about where the theory of evolution and creation mythologies started.
The theory of evolution started from these and other observations:
1. Rudimentary organs
2. Rudimentary characters
3. The Bodily Structure of humans shares the same general structure as other
mammals
4. Humans can get diseases from other animals
5. Human embryonic development is not that much different that other higher
vertebrate.
6. Variability in humans.
7. Those with the best traits for adapting to their environment or more likely
to have offspring.
8. Comparison of basic mental traits with other animals, like the ability to
learn.
9 . . .
Christian creation mythology started (correct me if I am wrong) with God
telling Moses how it happened.
This is why I wrote the evolution is exposed to, and can be changed by the
observations of others, thus you don't have to agree that the above
observations suggest that all mammals have a common origin. This is what makes
it a theory.
There are no observations to disagree with on how God told Moses. One reads
the book, prays, and then thinks about things like how else would all of the
universe get created if it was not for a God. -> "A watch does not come
together on its own, some one has to put it together." That is how faith
develops.
The two are at the very lowest levels different.
---*transitional forms are not the basis of mammal evolution theory, they onlysupport the basic observations. Whether or not evidence of transitional formsis now a complete support of mammal evolution is another argument all together.
---On Sep 5, 1:13pm, Dennis L. Durst wrote:> Subject: Re: theory vs. law> Dear Stephen,>> Let's see...the innumerable transitional forms predicted by> Darwin have for the most part not been found. Therefore the evolutionist> BY FAITH believes that either a) they once existed but have been destroyed;> or b) they can be explained by rapid speciation events (puntuated> equilibrium) by an as-yet-unkown mechanism or c) they exist and will> be found in the future. It is the FAITH of the evolutionist in the> theory that compels him/her to embrace a, b, or c above, NOT the> current state of the empirical record. Or do you have another> alternative?>> Dennis Durst>-- End of excerpt from Dennis L. Durst
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| Stephen Gooch | stephen.gooch@asu.edu || 770.903.6778 | http://goodnet.com/~ej23298 |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#!/bin/shecho '16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D3F204445524F42snlbxq'|dc;exit