My view of evolution came out of watching pro-evolutionists debate with some Creationists.
And I was reminded of something that had puzzled me when I was younger. And that is this idea that you don’t see in-between species.
Well if species are supposed to EVOLVE thats a killer observation to make. If we don’t have in-between species in the fossil record thats a devastating critique of evolution.
Now Stephen Jay Gould and friends might come up with PUNCTUATED evolution. But thats a feeble explanation and is in fact no explanation because it explains the how but not the WHY.
Furthermore these guys tend to get SHIRTY when questioned on this and come up with some examples where there really is that sort of morphing-evolution that is somewhat close to how the public thinks about the evolutionary process.
I realised that the creationists had the better line of reasoning in that part of the argument.
So I ups and discovered the two different types of evolution.
There is two types of evolution:
1. PUMPING HOLOCAUST EVOLUTION and
2. NEW-NICHE-MORPHING EVOLUTION.
I won’t go into explaining these here and now but I’ve been a bit mischievious and I’ve been surreptitiously imbedding conclusions from these theories in my threads.
I’ve been imbedding these ideas in my threads as if they were settled science rather the BEST-AND-ONLY-FIT-INDUCTIVENESS on my part.
But if someone asks me about these ideas I’ll explain and most likely include the explanation in a re-written threadstarter.
Now bear in mind BY MY OWN TESTIMONY I do not think this conceptual speculation on my part amounts to having settled these matters.
Because as I said before you really need at least 3 lines of CONVERGENCE to have rightful certitude about anything at all.