Valentine Pontifex

I am not sure why you are bringing this up. If it is because you doubt that c is a constant, then remember that c is the velocity of light in a vacuum. That light's velocity changes debending on the local "medium" is old news. There been reports in the last year or so of researchers slowing down light to a near crawl. I understand that Larry Niven wrote a story about "slow glass" about glass that light look several years to pass through.

MrDarwin

Are you suggesting that "kind" corresponds roughly to "phylum"?

Are you suggesting that Wells--and you--believe that, although the phyla supposedly originated separately, and all at about the same time, from that point on evolution has proceeded pretty much as paleontologists and evolutionary biologists believe?

Bait

Hey Kosh... I DID say for giggles....glad your laughing....(chuckle). You've been too serious lately.
R.

Bait

Hello LordValentine:
I was only bringing it up as something interesting (why I said fyi)...saw the article, thought it was intereesting, that's all. Sorry to waste the time. Wasn't trying to start anything.My bad.
Ron

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Bait ]</p>

Bait

Hello MrDarwin,
No, not necessarily. But this hasn't been explained yet. I've seen the statement that all life came from one source, ie: we all evolved from one source. Evolution begins at some point...either from one source or not. Right?
I cannot speak for Mr. Wells, but I keep getting hammered with the "empirical evidence" that life began as one celled organism's that became 2 celled, then three...then multiple, then branched into plants, then something else...until we get to man. I do not dispute that natural selection exists...no dispute at all. What I dispute is the origins of life that is presented by Darwin theory. If life did not come from ONE cell, ONE organism,in ONE location, then that part of the theory fails, and it has to be re-thought. Before it can be re-thought, one must recognise, and admit the failure first...right?
Ron

Bait

John and Patrick,
I finally found it. The theory of the water below the surface of the mantle. Would you, as a geologists, honestly (with open mind)look at this theory, and tell me what you think. This gentleman seems to have a lot of evidence, but me not being a geologist, I cannot be honestly for or against. It seems to make sense to me, a layman, which means nothing. Yes, he has an agenda...but put that aside for now. I'm NOT saying that this is proof...or correct reasoning even, but rather one of many theories. He has a lot of boasting stuff, ignor it. It's the theory I'm interested in.

It's called the "Hydroplate theory" by Dr. walter Brown.: <a href="http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html</a>
Go to part II “fountains of the deep”

Thanks,
Ron

Kosh

So... do you really need me to expose the
errors of that argument, or do you see them?

MrDarwin

I don't have time to discuss it, but for those so inclined, here is an interesting article:

<a href="http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm" target="_blank">Early Animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology
</a>

From this article, I wonder how this "icon" of the origin of phyla compares to that of Wells:



[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Bait

Hello Somegirl,
Welcome, I'm looking at the link you gave. Sounds like your a fellow Christian (based on the link you gave)about to face the wolves. Warning, be careful. Hope you have a thick hide...these guys are tough...and experienced. I've been chewed a few times. Anyway, welcome.
Ron

MrDarwin

Well, on second thought, here are some things to think about:

(1) the phyla do not appear all at once

(2) the phyla are not "separate but equal"; it is quite clear, from both morphological and molecular evidence, that certain phyla are closely related to each other, and others are more distantly related

(3) the oldest phyla, as deduced from both morphological and molecular evidence (Porifera and Cnidaria), are also the earliest to appear in the fossil record (and the only ones that appear unambiguously before the Cambrian)

(4) No living taxa of any phyla appear among the earliest fossil representatives of those phyla; in fact, the oldest representatives of virtually all phyla are generally nothing like the modern representatives of those phyla, except in broadest "body plan" outline.

These observations are consistent with evolutionary theory. I fail to see how they are consistent with creationism of any stripe.