Evolution by convenience.
karl
Evolution by convenience.
It seems quite apparent that the problems concerning evolution comes
from within the evolution camps. When one line of reasoning fails
another is dreamed up and inserted where it is conveniently believed to
fit. In a sense itąs... evolution by convenience.
For example;
One type of evolutionist claims that it was a long slow process lasting
billions of years in which micro-evolution eventually developed into
macro-evolution. They would have you believe this process guided by
natural selection developed new species. There claims also mention that
the geological column has captured these slow transitional changes.
On the other hand,
There are many evolutional scientist who are saying that they are wrong.
They are saying that the geological column does not show a smooth
transition of one species changing into another. As a matter of fact they
are stating that the fossil record contains many very large gaps. Due to
the large gaps, they have developed the idea of łPunctuated Equilibrium˛.
In their attempt to conveniently account for the recognized gaps in the
fossil record they believe that a species stayed around for a few million
years then rapidly in a short period of time, around tens of thousands of
years, evolved into a new species. This quick change is the łpunctuation˛
while the long time in-between changes is the łequilibrium˛.
All along the evolutionist conveniently forget about the currently
living items such as the Horseshoe crab whose virtually unchanged
ancestors fossils have been found and dated by evolutionary geologist as
millions of years old. There is also the Tautara fossils found in 135
million year Cretaceous strata which have also been found alive today and
like the Horseshoe crab appear almost identical to their fossil
counterparts. One wonders why these living animals survive the millions
of years with out changing. Certainly over the very long time span of
millions of years there would have been a slow gradual change or quick
jump as predicted by the evolutionist. But there isnąt.
Then again lets not forget the Giant Panda and the Red Panda who are
similar enough to both be called Pandas right down to their sesamoid
thumbs (the only creatures to have them). Yet they are believed to have no
close relationship. The Giant Panda is believed to have descended from
Bears and the Red Panda from the Racoon. In an effort to conveniently
explain away this problem the evolutionist call this form of evolution of
their sesamoid thumbs, "Convergent Evolution". This independent process
is said to have made the thumbs of both pandas alike ...some how.
Still the evolutionist are always dreaming up ways to explain the origins
of certain species. For example when itąs convenient they tell us that
the fish lost their fins and they slowly changed into legs as the animal
crawled out of the water. But, the Mesonyx a wolf like animal lost his
legs and they turned into fins as he crawled back into the water while
changing into a whale. It seem the evolutionist want it both ways. Why
not cover all of the bases. How convenient for them to be able to pick and
choose the theory of their choice.
All in all which is it...Slow and gradual evolution...quick gap filled
evolution...non changing evolution...convergent non-ancestral
evolution...fins to legs or legs to fins or the convenient answer...łall
of the above˛?
--
+++++++++++++
see ya,
karl
+++++++++++++
The evidence for evolution is found in the "GAPS"
and currently is filled in with biased imagination,
speculation and plaster of paris.
John Jimenez
karl wrote:
>
> Evolution by convenience.
>
> It seems quite apparent that the problems concerning evolution comes
> from within the evolution camps. When one line of reasoning fails
> another is dreamed up and inserted where it is conveniently believed to
> fit. In a sense itąs... evolution by convenience.
It's not as bad as the religious approach to evolution and science in
general. After all it was only a few years ago that the catholic church
admitted that Galeleo was right and the earth isn't the center of the
universe.
> For example;
> One type of evolutionist claims that it was a long slow process lasting
> billions of years in which micro-evolution eventually developed into
> macro-evolution. They would have you believe this process guided by
> natural selection developed new species. There claims also mention that
> the geological column has captured these slow transitional changes.
> On the other hand,
>
> ancestors fossils have been found and dated by evolutionary geologist as
> millions of years old. There is also the Tautara fossils found in 135
> million year Cretaceous strata which have also been found alive today and
> like the Horseshoe crab appear almost identical to their fossil
> counterparts. One wonders why these living animals survive the millions
> of years with out changing.
Enviromental factors may not have dictated that change was necessary.
Look at the crocodillion family.
> Certainly over the very long time span of
> millions of years there would have been a slow gradual change or quick
> jump as predicted by the evolutionist.
{<Cut> for propriety]
>How convenient for them to be able to pick and
> choose the theory of their choice.
Considering how the concept of the holy trinity came about I wouldn't
poke too mcuh criticism at scientists.
> All in all which is it...Slow and gradual evolution...quick gap filled
> evolution...non changing evolution...convergent non-ancestral
> evolution...fins to legs or legs to fins or the convenient answer...łall
> of the above˛?
Which is pretty much all that christians do in how they explain
everything.
> --
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> The evidence for evolution is found in the "GAPS"
> and currently is filled in with biased imagination,
> speculation and plaster of paris.
1)Then why don't we use our appendix anymore?
I'm not trying to make you question your faith but you have to be
practical in life in everything you do. Even relgion, maybe especialy
religion.
John Jimenez