SG>These are the basis of evolution - they can be observed by anyone at any tim
SG>1. Rudimentary organs
SG>2. Rudimentary characters
SG>3. The Bodily Structure of humans shares the same general structure as other
SG>mammals
SG>4. Humans can get diseases from other animals
SG>5. Human embryonic development is not that much different that other higher
SG>vertebrate.
SG>6. Variability in humans.
SG>7. Those with the best traits for adapting to their environment or more like
SG>to have offspring.
SG>8. Comparison of basic mental traits with other animals, like the ability to
SG>learn.
Steve,
These are particular observations, with a hint of bias tossed in for
emphasis (i.e. rudimentary) which when subjected to examination from a
presupposition of evolution will give rise to being exactly what one
intends them to be... bases for evolution. But the greater point to be
made is that evolution also requires faith in what has not been
observed, but nonetheless is absolutely necessary to fill out the
model's puzzle.
...as in the genesis of life, the evolution of the cell, the division
between plant and animal life, the jump between phyla or classes, the
evolution of DNA and chromasomes, etc., etc., etc....
Dennis says it better than I do about one faith-based evolutionary
assumption... the transition in forms.
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
SG>This is about where the theory of evolution and creation mythologies started.
The theory of evolution started without many of your above stated bases
being known or understood. Charles Darwin, et. al., knew or wrote little
about items 1,4,5,7, and 8. The theory of evolution started with the
desire to formulate an alternative explanation to God as creator. It did
not start solely with the basis of observation. An assumption was made
that God did not create and the evidence was merely reinterpreted from a
completely naturalistic and materialistic perspective. The holes in that
proposal have been filled with unobserved but required assumptions.
Evolution as we understand it is faith based... it requires faith in
unobserved mechanisms and historical events that were not recorded and
which are not observable or repeatable. As Dennis also noted, the
evidence that forms your basis can be interpreted in different ways
dependent upon one's philosophical view, chosen assumptions, and
methodology.
Paul
to: IN:sgooch@sm10.sciatl.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu