The history we find can definitely be explained by Microevolutionary
changes. The fact that we can not find transition species should point to
the fact that there is no transitioning occuring. Evolutionary changes all
occur within the bound of a species.
While the changes may be huge, that does not imply a change of species. A
poodle and a German sheperd have huge anatomical differences, but they are
one species and changes occuring between them are microevolutionary changes.
Failure to interbreed also does not imply a change of species. A wild dog
will not breed with a domestic dog. The reason is not because the wild dog
is a different species; but because of a difference in social behavior; and
possibly some minor differences in their genetic makeup. The same goes for
a wolf and a dog. Forgive me in advance for what may seem like a racist
comment but there is no intent of racist malice in this comment. Many white
people will not interbreed with black people and vice-versa. A breeding of
Europeans with pygmies often results in failure. But it is clear that a
white person, a black person, an asian pygmy are all the same species.
We should reevaluate the evidence before us. If for instance, a pygmy bone
were to become fossilized, many of us would conclude that a pygmy was part
of our ancestral descent from lower life form. Such is the error introduced
by the wrong paradigm - the wrong world view, a Darwinian world view.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Veeder" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic
Improbability
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote:
Doesn't Darwinian Evolution say we should be improving?
Jojo
Nope. Where did you get that idea?
Harry
Improvement happens within a "micro-evolutionary setting. Within a
macro-evolutionary setting there is just a history of changes.
Harry
