Right Divider
Body part
Doesn't help the "theory of evolution".You're right. Hobie said that. My apologies. You're right; he's wrong. As even professional creationists admit, new taxa evolve from old ones, and do indeed produce more species, not less.
So you're some sort of unique "evolutionist"?Neither does evolutionary theory. The earth produced living things, which diversified according to kind. God didn't tell us how; He just said it happened.
Darwinism had SO many problems that it, too, "evolved". It had to since it was a complete failure.Many don't today. Creationism has evolved over time. :BRAVO:
:rotfl:Most major creationist organizations acknowledge the evolution of new species, genera and families of organisms. Don't know of any yet willing to acknowledge the evolution of new classes, but it's progress. Again, my apologizing with confusing you with a paleo YE.
My apologies for you confusing yourself with a Darwinian or a Neo-Darwinian.... so many evolutionists, so little time.
The word "evolution" is fine as long as we stick with the observable and don't extrapolate into the normal evolutionist fairy tale.And yes, I know that evolved creationists don't like to use the "E" word. Which is fine. Darwin didn't either. He called it "descent with modification." So you're good with that, too.
Actually they don't claim it's an "unlimited free-for-all", either. All living things are constrained by the development of organisms that came before. So, for example, while it might be useful for birds to have dentine in beaks to make them harder and more durable, they can't just evolve that; there's no viable transition that would work. Likewise, humans would be greatly enhanced by a second pair of hands. But there's no way to evolve it that would have viable transitional forms.
Wild speculation... typical evolutionary theory.The greatly improved hearing of mammals could have been engineered more simply than by borrowing some jaw bones (which gather sound in reptiles) and miniaturizing them.
Great story telling.But that had feasible transitional forms, and therefore could evolve. This is an important part of evolutionary theory, one people often miss.
Funny stuff... are you here all week?Yep. You're a thoughtful person. That can be dangerous to your creationist beliefs.
You are, once again, not in the mainstream of evolutionary theory.You do realize that the origin of life isn't part of evolutionary theory, right? Even Darwin just supposed God created the first living things.
Do you know anything at all about the difference between operational science with real evidence and real experimental support and the WILD historical story telling of "evolution"?Comes down to evidence. And that indicates a common ancestor. And we know the evidence works, because we can check it with the genes of organisms of known descent.
You have a different story than mainstream "evolution". Your's is just a different fairy tale.More like misconceptions. Many creationists think evolutionary theory is about the origin of life. And many don't know anything about the genetic and fossil evidence for common descent.
Last edited: