Bruce L Grubb (
Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:49:05 -0700

In article <58rc3d$>, (Ed Conrad) wrote:

> "Rohinton Collins" <> wrote to
> sci.anthropology.paleo.
> >This group is for palaeoanthropologists, or people interested in
> >palaeoanthropology. It almost goes without saying that posters
> > to this newsgroup should accept evolution as fact so that we
> >can move on to more interesting subject matter.
> My ticket is bought, my bags are packed and, if I listen closely
> enough, I think I can even hear the traveling music.
> Before I go, Roh, do you have any evidence -- ANY evidence
> whatsoever -- that would encourage me to make the trip?
> I mean, why should I -- why should we? -- take your word that
> evolution is a fact. Last I looked, the pot was empty. And that
> was just five minutes ago.

This is only because you equate Evolution with Darwinian Evolution which is
NOT true. Evolution in its -truest- sence has only three criteria that
must be met <>:

1) A form of change happens
2) The change is inherable
3) The change is passed on to succeding generations

Note that the criteria say NOTHING about the method of the change or how
the change comes about; it can come about though Darwinin, Divine, or other
Also the direction of the change is meaningless, as long as it meets these
three criteria it IS Evolution.

Genesis 3:14-19, Genesis 6:3, and Genesis 9:1-5 all speak of events that
meet the three criteria - the change in Adam, in Eve, and in the snake, the
Lord's limiting of Man's time to 120 years, and the dread by all other
animals of Man.

While these examples are -regressive- in nature they are examples of
Evolution so the pot has something in it; it may not be Darwin but it is