[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[lordkalvan]

THEORY:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion, hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

It would appear you need to bone up on the actual meaning of the word and not try to obfuscate it's real connotation, and making it fit your preconceptions.

It seems that you omitted to quote the first definition provided by your source:

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

In other words, MBS is correct and you are wrong. Such selective quoting and unjustified put-downs based on it don't do much credit to either you or your argument.

 

[Barbarian]

THEORY:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion, hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

It would appear you need to bone up on the actual meaning of the word and not try to obfuscate it's real connotation, and making it fit your preconceptions.

I see you skipped over the scientific definition, and chose the colloquial one. Here's one a little closer to the scientific meaning, the one you skipped over to get the informal definition.

1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

But let's put the dictionary aside and see how the word is actually used in working science.

A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]
Wikipedia.

Better... but..

:eeeekkk

Wait...

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

hmm...

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961

It seems to always blindside people when they learn this. Does no one listen in 7th grade science class?

 

[Stan53]

It seems that you omitted to quote the first definition provided by your source:

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

In other words, MBS is correct and you are wrong. Such selective quoting and unjustified put-downs based on it don't do much credit to either you or your argument.

I didn't omit anything, I provided the proper one. Not all words have only ONE meaning.
As the one you provide above is not within the proper context or connotation, I'll have to stick with my last post.

 

[Stan53]

I see you skipped over the scientific definition, and chose the colloquial one. Here's one a little closer to the scientific meaning, the one you skipped over to get the informal definition.

I used the proper connotation, as I originally stated, within the proper context of the "theory of evolution'.

IF the theory was held as extremely credible, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, then the first connotation would have been more apropos. As this 'theory' of evolution is mostly conjecture on the part of it's originator and mostly used to try and disprove God, it properly falls into the secondary connotation.

 

[lordkalvan]

I didn't omit anything, I provided the proper one. Not all words have only ONE meaning.
As the one you provide above is not within the proper context or connotation, I'll have to stick with my last post.

Nope, you provided the one you wanted to use to 'correct' MBS. If you believe your use of the definition in reference to the theory of evolution is more appropriate and correct that MBS's you need to do a great deal more to justify this than just asserting it to be so, especially as I suspect most scientists would regard the theory of evolution as being at least as reliable as the theory of relativity that you have cited as an example of the definition you chose not to use.

ETA 'The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity.'

Source: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html

 

[Stan53]

Nope, you provided the one you wanted to use to 'correct' MBS. If you believe your use of the definition in reference to the theory of evolution is more appropriate and correct that MBS's you need to do a great deal more to justify this than just asserting it to be so, especially as I suspect most scientists would regard the theory of evolution as being at least as reliable as the theory of relativity that you have cited as an example of the definition you chose not to use.

ETA 'The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity.'

Source: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html

Like I said...it was provided in proper context. I can't help it if your understanding of grammar and vocabulary is not sufficient to recognize that. You speaking for MBS does not lend any more credence to the claims made by either of you and I'm not really intent on converting blind people. The website you provided does not validate your assumptions and assertions, but only serves to show how influential the web has become in fooling people who have nothing to actually believe in. Drilling down in this site I found the following disclaimer, " Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation." You can suspect all you care to, but this statement is pretty clear and intended to counter people like you that disingenuously use these type of sites to lend validity to areas that do NOT reflect real science.

 

[Barbarian]

I used the proper connotation, as I originally stated, within the proper context of the "theory of evolution'.

Nope. You used the colloquial meaning, which is not what is used in science.

IF the theory was held as extremely credible

It is.

such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity

It is much more solid than relativity, which is still controversial among scientists.

then the first connotation would have been more apropos. As this 'theory' of evolution is mostly conjecture on the part of it's originator

Never read the book um? There is evidence in numbing detail. Read the book and learn.

and mostly used to try and disprove God

You didn't know Darwin thought that God created the first living things? You've got a lot of material to catch up on.

 

[Barbarian]

ETA 'The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity.'

Actually, evolution is more solid than gravity. We know why evolution works. We still aren't quite sure why gravity works.

 

[lordkalvan]

Like I said...it was provided in proper context.

You can say what you like, but it remains a fact that your 'correction' of MBS was contextually wrong.

I can't help it if your understanding of grammar and vocabulary is not sufficient to recognize that.

And I can't help it if you don't understand the difference between scientific and colloquial uses of particular words and wish to insist that your usage is correct simply because you say so.

You speaking for MBS does not lend any more credence to the claims made by either of you and I'm not really intent on converting blind people.

I am afraid that you appear to be the blind one here.

The website you provided does not validate your assumptions and assertions, but only serves to show how influential the web has become in fooling people who have nothing to actually believe in.

Nope, it simply illustrates the difference between the meaning of theory as you wish to use it in the context of evolution and how it is actually used. No fooling involved.

Drilling down in this site I found the following disclaimer, " Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation."

Yes? And?

You can suspect all you care to, but this statement is pretty clear and intended to counter people like you that disingenuously use these type of sites to lend validity to areas that do NOT reflect real science.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't even begin to make sense. What is disingenuous about referencing a site that shows that the use of the word theory as applied to evolution has exactly the same weight of meaning as it does when applied to relativity, which you offered as an example yourself by the way, rather than the colloquial meaning you wish to apply to it just because you don't like evolution? Also, note what Barbarian said IRO gravity and evolutionary theories because he is right.

 

[cupid dave]

A theory can never be made fact without proof.
As Christians we don't need fact, because we operate and believe based on faith.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.

Stan..
You have a great job for a long time,( and the other church people who have supported one another and you), while the Bible Bashers have used their knowledge of Science to attack you, your use of a medieval interpretation of Genesis, and the Scriptures, in general.

The GOOD NEWS is that Genesis IS sceintifically speaking, literally correct in every verse.
The bad news is the ancient medieval way Genesis has been explained to the church people for centuries has been wrong.


The Big Bang science CONFIRMS that the Universe DID have a beginning. Gen 1:1

The fact that once Pangea existed CONFIRMS the "all the waters under heaven were collected together into one place." Gen 1:9)

Geologists CONFIRM that the Creation took place over SIX god-awful long "days" called Eras:

Evolutionists CONFIRM that the Plant Kingdom DID come before the Animal Kingdom. (Gen 1:11)



Join with me in disseminating this modern book report on Genesis so our fellow believers in the bible can bring these science people to their senses.
Show them that these things in Genesis require some divine source for the fore knowledge of things only recently discovered and uncovered by Science.

 

[cupid dave]

I have to agree with you. :nod

ALL we have these days is theories. Even from a non-believers perspective, creationsim is theory. As believers, we can see the creator's design.

It would not be unusual that there is a certain basic designe in the universe, just as Bill Gates gave Windows a basic design and has improved it over the years..

You are right.

Science tells us that the Brain is a pattern seeking device which uses the senses to to gather information external to the mind, then create a mental picture of the patterns that all reinforce one another.

What the MRI brain wave studies are discovering is that parts of our brain are assigned to focus on different sensory information.
By experience and the confirmation of all the previous collections of data, our brain has organized and stored the rather limited meanings for each sensory stimulus received.

That is, for example, we know a whistle sound of the poloiceman from the similar sound of the train.

What scientists have shown, though, is that we have a vast inventory of visuals.
We have a storehouse of things we have seen.
By stimulting certain area of the brain suspected of being that storehouse, we can tell what a person sees, for instance, without reference to the actual view itself.

By cramming our computer memory with numerous "samples" of different visual objects or scenes, we can tell what the person is actually seeing just using the fMRI info coming from the person who is seeing something.

Thereconstruction was created from the fMRI’s electromagnetic readings of thesubject’s brain activity, without any reference to the actual image. It wasaccomplished by combining data from areas of the brain that respond to particularregions in a person’s field of vision together with data from other parts ofthe brain that respond to different themes. A computer then sorted through adatabase of six million images and picked the one that best corresponded toreadings.



This starling discovery is introducing us to our own Unconscious mind.
Subliminal mind investigation is gradually leading us to understand how the patterns we seek in Nature are actually already stored in the brain.

 

[Barbarian]

It may not be accepted by the scientists who support evolution, but there are many more scientists who do accept it as a more viable alternative to the theory of evolution.

Taking the lists of scientists who don't accept evolution, and comparing it to the data from Project Steve, we get about 0.3% of biologists doubting evolutionary theory. That's less than 1%. The bandwagon argument is a loser for creationists.

I see no straw man in this website. Of course if you don't believe in the creator then how could your possible accept creationism?

There are some forms of creationism that are not in conflict with Genesis, but YE creationism is not one of them. You cannot consistently accept God's word and YE creationism.

 

[Milk-Drops]

It don't matter how many facts and links you publish here they get thrown out if they do not agree with some people's beliefs. God could tell them himself that he created every animal after their kind in 6 days in the opposite order they believe they evolved in, and he would be wrong.

No Spartakis, here is the problem. You admit to having layman's knowledge and some ignorance of the topic of Biological Evolution. Your arguments are flawed. Barbarian, LordKalvin, and me to a lesser extent have been gone through rigorous education on this subject.
We are critiquing your submissions. Why? Because, since you are a layman, you confuse subject matter and have difficulty with complicated and advanced subjects in the field you wish to talk about. It has nothing to do with your religion, it has all to do with your own ignorance on the subject. That is it.

Give the video I posted an example, they are called a liar and ignorant for telling the truth.

What truth? They either don't know or are lieing. Simple as that. If someone is trying to teach you about a subject and can't understand the source of the subject, What the subject even says, mashing several theories together, etc. should not be taken seriously. People that do the latter are not showing truth. No matter how much you want it to be. If someone started a video by saying that Peanut Butter is a fruit and how everyone else is wrong, and their argument is to then blame Peanut Butterists for trying to hid this fact, I don't care what the video has to say after that. Their integrity is gone.

Of course no one listened to even the part I asked them to where Dr John Endler an evolutionist who's work is quoted by dawkins explains what is considered evolution and what is not. He even points out that many call NS evolution.

I'll watch this part, but if its not an interview, and just a section of video that the guys are using out of context. Then I'll really not be pleased.

They are called liars and ignorant when they point out facts as to what they are talking about. False claims was made about the video that they state scientist teach this when the video does state that the knowledgeable evolutionist do not teach this, but once again they give examples of what they are talking about.

There evidence in the video have been quote mines to support the refutation of their strawman argument against evolution. Don't get mad because we won't swallow these guy's fallacious arguments.

A claim was made that they state evolution has to prove where mutations come from? That was never stated,

WRONG WRONG WRONG in the first 8 minutes of the video the 2 speakers said "evolution can not answer where the mutations came from", So your argument is false.

only thing was stated about mutations was when someone answered their questions brings it up and they state what mutations do. Where they got this? They obviously did't watch the video, watched and did not listen, or making something up.

Or we watched the first 8 minutes of the video.

Here I was given a video that called creationist ignorant and was insulting ( even had a short insulting cartoon in it to Christians that believe the Bible) but I watched the whole thing opened minded. I posted 2 videos of facts of major problems with the fossil record but they I am sure are ignorant and not true. Facts don't mean anything here unless they agree with evolution.

What video was this? Care to post it? I remember giving you a video about the emergence of Cat ancestry. Is that the video?

Creation.com has some real good videos with interviews with biologist, chemist, marine biologist, and etc.... I recommend watching.
http://creation.com/creation-videos
Also 15 questions to evolutionist
http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed

How about you read text on evoluton. These people are against Evolution. They will never tell you the whole story, or anything they can't easily dispute within a context of limited allowed information.
Read real text book. Start with the Origin of species to understand where Darwin was coming from. Then pick up a text book on the subject matter.
You will then understand why we see the "15 Questions" as nonsense questions that anyone with a decent/basic education on this subject matter will immediately see the flawed logic behind the questions.

I hope this helps you.

 

[Milk-Drops]

THEORY:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion, hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

It would appear you need to bone up on the actual meaning of the word and not try to obfuscate it's real connotation, and making it fit your preconceptions.

Ah, maybe you should reread that definition. Especially that last line there.

"Well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact"

All living organisms either adapt or go extinct when competing in a habitat - Fact

The theory evolution explains why this happens when it explains the mechanisms of Natural selection, Sexual Selection, Convergent Selection, Niches, other selections, the Bottle Neck Effect, etc.

The theory of evolution lines up perfectly well.

 

[cupid dave]

Ah, maybe you should reread that definition. Especially that last line there.

"Well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact"

All living organisms either adapt or go extinct when competing in a habitat - Fact

The theory evolution explains why this happens when it explains the mechanisms of Natural selection, Sexual Selection, Convergent Selection, Niches, other selections, the Bottle Neck Effect, etc.

The theory of evolution lines up perfectly well.

Fine and good...
Supposing he is wrong, and his understanding of whatb the bible actually says is wrong, too.'

Ought not an educated intelligent and intellectually honest person like you suggest to him, that science will support Genesis if he would see what is written with a better reading comprehension?

I mean, rather than use your science knowledge to merely ridicule his naive medieval interpretation which clearly is opposed to evolution???


Rather than mock him while pretending that what he says actually is to be read out of Genesis, which it is not, shouldn't a nice person like you say the Bible is correct, but the church's teaching on Genesis is incorrect???

Book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

[Asyncritus]

Sorry to be so late. Busy.

Barbarian observes:
Good question. First, you have to remember that natural selection does not necessarily cause evolution.

If the environment changes, natural selection will cause evolution to occur again. That's how it works.

Natural selection CANNOT CAUSE evolution to occur.

It SELECTS from an already existing population. It hasn't CAUSED the new characters to appear - it merely sifts them if they're beneficial. I really don't understand why you cannot see this elementary point.

Let me try to illustrate.

Speckled and white moths exist side by side in a forest. BOTH OF THEM.

Pollution causes the white barks to go dark. The white moths are now highly visible against the dark background, and guess what? The predators pick them off.

The remaining moth population is speckled mostly, and survives.

[FONT=&quot]But that is not evolution. No new species has arisen, far less a new genus or higher. Essentially nothing has happened except that there are now more S's than W's in the population..

You cannot demonstrate that this would produce anything new, and therefore NS is no help to evolution. Is it, now?
[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian oberves:
Surprise. In one case, it was directly observed to produce a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system.

Oh wonderful

How fantastic! A whole new genus has arisen, no a new phylum! Ta raaaa! Do talk some sense, Barbarian.

Redwood trees, again?

C'mon, you've retreated to claiming evolution can only be evolution if it takes longer than any human can document. Do you think anyone is fooled?

Obviously you are. You have no proof of anything, except these silly molecular genetic rubbish examples. Come on man. Produce a new organ or something significant. Account for these zillion new species in the Cambrian. Gainsay Broom's statement that no new genus has arisen in the last 2 million years. That evolution is at a dead end.

Barbarian continues:
If a population is highly fitted to an essentially unchanging environment, it can actually prevent evolution. (scientists call it "stabilizing selection") So we see a sudden increase in taxa when the environment changes, or some kind of breakthrough evolution makes it possible for organisms to take advantage of new ways of life. The sudden increase in the number of taxa during the Cambrian explosion is an extreme example, but there are many others, such as the explosion of mammal species after the K-T event that killed off most large land animals.

So everything was standing still, marking time in the preCambrian, then suddenly, contrary to every gradual Darwinian piece of nonsense, KA-BOOOMMM! A zillion new species appear.

That how you see it? That is contrary to everything Darwin taught - yet you believe it! Against all probability, fact and observation.

 

[Asyncritus]

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.

You're right science has it - but they are so blinkered, they wouldn't recognise Hallucigenia if you slapped them in the face with it! They will not recognise the facts that are sitting there in every palaeontological museum on the planet.

Neither will you, it seems. Pity that, but there it is.


You have got to be joking about birds. Modification of what? If no bird existed, then no flight instincts existed either to be modified.

If the first bird flew, then it had those fully-formed flight instincts, and could use them.

Where did the information come from? Certainly not from parents. So where?

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:
And yet, we find soft-bodied or partially scleritized organisms in the Precambrian. When full-body exoskeletons evolved, there was a burst of speciation. That’s the “Cambrian Explosion.” Exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

What tosh.

Evolution never expected the Cambrian explosion, or any of the others either. Darwin said so many times. He also lamented the absence of 'intermediates'. He never recognised, nor did anyone else till I arrived on the scene, just how powerful the argument from the existence of instinct really is.
see www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com

They still don't.

Instinct is a particular type of information, which dictates the behaviour of organisms. IF THE INFORMATION IS FAULTY, the function cannot exist. IF THE INFORMATION IS DEVELOPING, then the behaviour cannot occur.

So here is a soft-bodied or partially scleritised ancestor of a hermit crab (which, by the way, shows no sign of having evolved into anything else since the first hermit crab appeared in the fossil record).

It is partially scleritised even today, and needs to find a snail shell to live in and protect itself, which it proceeds to do, and probably did since the first HC appeared on the planet. http://harunyahya.com/en/Guncel_Yorumlar/32644/Crabs_that_are_real_estate_agents


How do you account for the partially scleritised organisms which exist today? Are they evolving into something else (like the hermit crab , har-de-har!) or are they total disproof of the idea that partly scleritised evolved into scleritised?

Hermit crabs are known at least from the Cretaceous Speeton Clay where hermit crabs inhabited empty ammonite shells.
[FONT=&quot]
Cretaceous hermit crab within an ammonite shell. A-B left and right side of the inhabited ammonite.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/fossilgroups/crustacea/fossils.html

So partially scleritised hermit crab knows that it has to find protection, and has been doing so from hermit crab No.1.

How did he figure that one out? And how did the information enter the genome?

But wait, he also has these pincer claws.

Where did he get them from? And why?

And how did the instinct powering its use a. arise and b. enter the genome?

PS

Here's a descritption from the above link, which is extremely interesting, and totally destructive to evolution theory:

[/FONT]In the depths of the oceans where there is nothing but utter darkness; there are hydrothermal vents spewing out hot water at 400 degrees, along the giant wedges. Around these vents, a type of crab known as Bythograea Thermydron lives and the incredible heat does not affect this crab, at all.

This crab lives in this utter darkness. Yet, its eye is a significant support in this darkness. The feature that keeps the crab away from the 400 degrees of heat is the special structure in its eye.

Similar to flies, these crabs have a compound eye structure. These eyes are capable of focusing and perceiving the poor light in the depths of the ocean. The eyes of the crabs leaving the stage of larvae starts transforming in order to perceive the light that disappears at depths. This transformation takes a long time and happens in accordance with the particular program coded in the crab’s DNA.

An adult crab, reaching the bottom of the ocean at approximately a 4000-meter depth in utter darkness, possesses a lenseless retina. The photosensitive eyes provide the crab night vision. As a result, the crab can perceive the poor light around the hydrothermal vents in utter darkness. And thus, it protects itself from these hydrothermal vents that are fatal to other creatures. This complex plan is a sign of Supreme Intelligence.

Isn't it just!

 

[Asyncritus]

Evidence, again. In the Precambrian, we see the "small shelly fauna", mostly bits of sleritized plates, and mud traces of creatures with legs. Then, at the beginning of the Cambrian, we start to see fully-armored bodies, and the rate of speciation increases greatly as disruptive selection fills up the new niches.

That may be so, but these things have not evolved. They arose abruptly, as many palaeontologists will tell us.

How can so much speciation (as in the Cambrian) be accounted for on any theory of gradual, mutations and natural selection?

Directly observed. And even common descent is well documented. Even YE creationists who are familiar with the evidence admit it. Would you like to see that again?

Yes I would, provided you can show me a picture/drawing of this mythical creature.
Also, I again remind you that I am not a YE creationist, so their problems are not mine.

(claim of absence for Precambrian metazoans)

Barbarian chuckles:
It’s already done. An extensive and varied Ediacaran fauna existed in the Precambrian. Surprise.

You seem to spend your life in a continual state ot astonishment.

Wrong.

Stimulated in part by an international endeavour to define the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary for the global geological time scale, investigations across the world, including Siberia, China, Europe, and Australia, have yielded an unexpected range of mineralised microfossils. Dubbed the ‘small shelly fauna’ (SSFs) in a 1975 review paper by Matthews & Missarzhevsky, they appear just before the beginning of the Cambrian, increasing in numbers and diversity towards the Tommotian. Most are either tiny shells or else the disarticulated components, called sclerites, of an overall protective armour composed of many such parts, called a scleritome (Bengtson et al. 1990; Runnegar 1992, p. 66).
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/SmaSheFau.html



See above. Some people want to move the date of the Cambrian back to include the part of the Precambrian that shows hard body parts. Notice that fully-armored bodies didn't pop up out of nowhere. They were preceded by parial hard parts.

You have no evidence of this. There are partially scleritised even today, and fully scleritised as well. Their co-existence shows that they are not ancestors or descendants of one another. That is clearly what happened in the above-mentioned layers. Both kinds were created together. A did not descend from B.

Certainly not, if they were in the same layers.

or else the disarticulated components, called sclerites, of an overall protective armour composed of many such parts,

This conclusively proves that fully armoured existed alongside not-fully-armoured, and as above, were not ancestors or descendants of one another.

In any case, I wonder how you see an organism with the genes for partly-armoured producing a completely-armoured descendant . Don’t even mention OHHHHMMMMM ‘mutations and natural selection’. Because we aren’t talking about single mutations, we are talking about a vast number of brand new body plans.

We are clearly talking about Creation.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]