Evolution? How?

real, You missed it again! We're talking about evolution and religion, not evolution and Stalin. Can't you read anything without projecting?

real life wrote:

The reason I ask is that it relates to our earlier discussion that many so-called 'transitional' or 'intermediate' fossils could simply be examples of interbreeding between two existing species and not necessarily any evidence of an evolutionary transition at all.

So it's your conjecture that the fossil evidence for the Horse lineage (for example), in which gradual morphological changes appear in specific geological periods, is not transitional, but merely interbreeding from existing animals at those times.

So you think there were all these different "horse types" around at the same time, but we just happened to find particular ones at particular times in the geological record. So all the horse ancestors with multiple toes showed up in older geology and all the one toed horses showed up in recent geology, but they all happened to live together and were interbreeding to create mixes, which we also happened to find in sequential geological epochs.

Then of course, there's the "other" theory, the one in which the horses were evolving, over time, and the morphological changes would logically appear in sequence, over that geological spread (evolution), which is exactly what the evidence shows.

Hmmm, let's see, which theory makes more sense....

Species supposedly separated by long periods of time and change (one toed and three toed varieties) are found in the same location.

In some locations the one toed variety (supposedly the more modern species) is found in strata below the three toed (the more 'ancient').

Evolution does not occur in a straight line toward a goal, like a ladder; rather, evolution is like a branching bush, with no predetermined goal.

Horse species were constantly branching off the "evolutionary tree" and evolving along various unrelated routes. There's no discernable "straight line" of horse evolution. Many horse species were usually present at the same time, with various numbers of toes, adapted to various different diets. In other words, horse evolution had no inherent direction. We only have the impression of straight-line evolution because only one genus happens to still be alive, which deceives some people into thinking that that one genus was somehow the "target" of all the evolution. Instead, that one genus is merely the last surviving branch of a once mighty and sprawling "bush".

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.

A Brief History of the King James Bible

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance
As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.


One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."


The king rejoined that he:


"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."