Let us reason together.

Hi DrumI will cut-n-paste an argument: So here it is, the evolutionist's definition of evolution from Schraf's site. What is there to object to in this? How can you say that there is no evidence for these three things?If you do accept these three things - birth, death and slight differences between parents and offspring - then you are an evolutionist. As far as I know there are then 3 options:- Genesis 1 is not history, the earth and life are ancient. Huge numbers of tiny changes, accumulated, can explain all of life's diversity.
- Genesis 1 is true, but its words are used in non-standard ways, the earth and life are ancient. Many kinds were created, something limits the variability in any kind, but they do evolve according to circumstances
- Genesis 1 is true, the earth and life are 6,000 years old. Each kind was on the ark. Very, very rapid evolution has occured since then as the kinds change into species.So evolution exists. It's a question of which theory of evolution you subscribe to. Then there is the question of how internally consistent each theory really is.[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 02-23-2003]

Hi Richard -I was taught that there probably was a last universal common ancestor. It was presented - reasonably enough, as I thought - as an inference based on the remarkable similarity in the core biochemistry of all organisms. I have never seen anything like a rigorous proof of LUCA's existence, nor a research proposal to establish such a proof.More recently, following a link somewhere on this site (sorry no idea which thread), I saw a phylogenetic tree which had an interwoven network of lineages at the base with no 'main stem', thus no LUCA.It was presumably based on the assumption that as organic chemistry was becoming complex enough to involve reasonably good replication and energy transduction, the reactions were non-specific enough that lineages could merge easily, as well as split easily.In any case, the existence of LUCA is certainly not a necessary axiom for evolution.All 3 of the theories of evolution I presented involve descent with modification. However the ID/OEC and YEC versions (2 and 3 respectively) involve their proponents in all sorts of unresolved complexities which do not affect the mainstream scientific version.Specifically, they are vague enough to be described as unscientific unless someone, eventually, comes up with a remotely credible definition of 'kinds', and a remotely credible molecular genetic explanation of how the mutation of a certain lineage can be limited or directed to a set range of phenotypes.

So do you believe that species are incapable of change, and that every single animal species ever to have existed was in the ark?Most YEC's find the logistics involved in that idea so insane that they go for 'just' a few thousand kinds plus very rapid evolution afterwards.------------------
Then HE said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart, to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Luke 24 v 25

Not at all. When eukaryotic cells were formed by the permanent symbiosis of two prokaryotic lineages, disparate branches of the phylogenetic tree were mingled. There is no reason to suppose that this sort of thing was not possible - even easier - earlier on in life's history.