Creationism vs. Evolution Debate

Darwin was right about adaptation but wrong about evolution. What about the general rule in Science for extrapolation? Darwin violated that rule when he made his assumption on Evolution. For people who don't know what Extrapolation is, the definition is, "Following an established trend in the data even though there is no data available for that region." Darwin took small changes that he observed in animals and extrapolated them into huge changes. Darwin noticed that the finches on the Galapagos Islands had changed their beaks, feather color, and to a small extent their body sizes to adapt to the environment on each different island. These types of changes are very small compared to the kinds of changes necessary to turn a finch into a different species of bird! Darwin took a small amount of data and tried to make a huge extrapolation with it! This is the opposite of what a careful scientist would do!!!! Darwin was not careful and btw, evolution has never been proven!

Oh dear. I really, really, really, don't want to get into a argument with Creationists. I love a good debate, (as this thread and others testify), but this is just going to be like hitting my head against a brick wall.

Still, I will point out your main error:


No, they are not. They are EXACTLY the kinds of changes necessary to turn a finch into a different species of bird. It just requires a whole lot of them, say, the number that might accumulate over a hundred thousand years or so. Two individuals with only two different characteristics are clearly still part of the same species, but what happens when they have different beaks, different feather colors, different talons, different feather shapes, different feather thicknesses, different eye shapes, and so on, until, in short, every aspect of them has changed? At some point, they would become so different that they clearly wouldn't be the same species. In fact, they would be so different no one would even think of grouping them together.


It has been as well proven as any other scientific theory. It predicted the discovery of DNA and genetics. (and predictive power is one of the main criteria by which scientific theories are judged). It also explains how bacteria become resistant to medication, how weeds and insects learn to shrug off pesticides. You can actually evolve bacteria in a lab to create drug resistant strains. Evolution explains the emergence of viruses such as the swine flu. It explains how selective breeding can turn wolves into chihuahuas, too, and while they still aren't separate species yet, pretty much everyone agrees that they are well on their way to it.

To become another species they have to have the genetic information in their DNA. The only way DNA can be altered is by mutation which removes information from DNA, not building it up. So as time goes on you don't have new information, you have less!


How does evolution explain the swine flu? Just a question that I would like answered. You don't evolve bacteria in a lab what you do is get a large amount of it and then inject the mass with the drug, eventually the only bacteria alive will be the ones that mutated and are now not effected by the drug. Selective Breeding is not evolution. By breeding a wolf and a chihuahua the "puppy" has features of both but it is still a dog! Again "pretty much on their way" and "a new species" are completely different!

Mutation changes the information. This may involve removal, difference, or addition. And the changes are cumulative. It's the cumulative part that matters. Over time, the DNA of an isolated population can become so different from that of another isolated population of members of the same species that their descendants cease to be members of the same species.


i.e. those that have evolved to have a resistance. That is, originally, only a handful of the original bacterial population had resistance, but the addition of the drug to the environment meant that only those survived, so the trait was selected for. This is evolution at its most basic.


Look up any of the scientific articles that explain where it came from.


Evolutionary theory underlies all biology, and is relevant to cultural studies, computing, and a host of other fields. It is unsurprising that I would occasionally reference such a powerful and useful theory in my posts. That doesn't mean that I want to debate its validity, any more than when I reference computers in my posts, that I want to debate whether or not computers exist.


That was my primary intent, as well as to learn a lot myself, which I have done. Some of these threads have forced me to refine and clarify my own views, which is always a good thing.

The fossil record is one of the things that disproves evolution! In the fossil record we find bones of men buried sooner or in the same layer as animals that evolutionists claim weren't alive at that time.


Natural selection has been observed... Evolution has not! Natural selection is basically the survival of the fittest... Evolution is one species changing into another.


What is evolution? The Theory of Evolution says that things started out simple and have become more and more complex. That is not what we see in real life! The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things start complex and, as time goes on, break down into simpler things. You have a Theory vs. Laws

... What wins? Especially when there is no proof of evolution.


You are right. New diseases are not created. The swine flu was a real flu in swine. A mutated version of the swine flu somehow was transmitted to a Human and the virus was brought into society.


This is mutation at its basic.
There are many other issues of evolution that have not yet been addressed. One is how everything began; another is the meaning of life, if you think we are random molecules that came about by random chance and we could evolve into something different at any time, what is your purpose in life? And the impossible point for evolutionists to prove... non living chemicals spontaneously breaking forth alive... Science fiction at its best!

Only in 2 cases: 1) Where the fossils were planted as fakes, and 2) where natural geological processes have clearly shifted the layers out of the order in which they were originally laid.


Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. If you admit that species change over generations through natural selection, then eventually, given enough time, speciation is the logical conclusion. So, this statement is disingenuous at best.


Again, your statements betray only your own ignorance of the theories you are talking about. Evolution in no way contradicts or is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will increase over time in an isolated system. The Earth is not an isolated system. It gets continual energy from the sun, and it is that energy that virtually all life on earth uses as fuel to build and maintain itself. Over time, of course, if we find no way to reverse the second law of thermodynamics, all life will cease followed by the rest of the universe, as it experiences heat death.


You cannot acknowledge the reality of mutation and natural selection, and then somehow claim that this disproves the theory that gives us the concepts. Sorry.


That you don't like the implications of the theory of evolution, and cannot handle the existential crisis it poses for you, are not proof that the theory is false.


There are at least two fully developed evolutionary theories that can provide an explanation. Eventually, one of them will be proved when the process is replicated in a lab.

Then what are these two theories and why hasn't this been done already? I have yet to hear of an experiment that has produced life, or come reasonably close to doing so.

Actually, I said there are at least two. In fact, wikipedia alone lists seven, and I imagine it is hardly comprehensive:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

And no, an experiment that has produced life has not yet been carried out. Hence my use of the future tense in my original post. However, various experiments have been carried out that indicate that such an experiment will eventually be successful. For instance, this one recently showed that the basic chemicals present on early Earth could have given rise to the basic building blocks of RNA fairly easily:

wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

The article that you provided says that it is impossible for ribonucleotides to form. Also the origin of life article says it shouldn't be confused with evolutionary models. The problem with several of the hypothesis's are many. Some of them have already been proven wrong, eg. Spontaneous Generation, Some, like the black smoker and the radioactive beach model, provide sugars for the amino acids and proteins to form, but the problem is once these are formed sugars are actually destructive to them. The chemical atmosphere contains positive and negative amino acids to make proteins, but only negative amino acids can be used to make them (if there are positive ones they will not form) all of these problems in all of these hypothesis's convince me that evolution is not true science.

To back up my point on Theory vs. Law there is a law that no evolutionist can say doesn't apply, The Law of Biogenesis. This scientific Law says that "Life can only come from life!" Evolution teaches that a bunch of random chemicals some how all connected in the right order to make a protein and then somehow made tons and tons of these and finally made a cell. Somewhere along the way evolution says that those chemicals came to life. This theory is in conflict with a Scientific Law and the Law always wins!

To back up my point on Theory vs. Law there is a law that no evolutionist can say doesn't apply, The Law of Biogenesis. This scientific Law says that "Life can only come from life!" Evolution teaches that a bunch of random chemicals some how all connected in the right order to make a protein and then somehow made tons and tons of these and finally made a cell. Somewhere along the way evolution says that those chemicals came to life. This theory is in conflict with a Scientific Law and the Law always wins!


Mutation can never add information. Scientists like Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Werner Gitt agree that mutation has never added information to the genetic code. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time.


So, in time, selective breeding would turn a dog into a snake... That seems absurd!


In addition to my statement made before I just want to give some hard facts about the fossil record. 95% of it is marine organisms, coral, shellfish, etc... 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants... 95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects,,, The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. Also man wouldn't have necessarily been fossilized. Early man would probably have decomposed or been eaten. Forces of nature can also remove bodies. The 2004 tsunami in southeast Asia was a reminder of the speed water can erase all trace of bodies. According to the United Nation's Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, almost 43,000 victims were never found. Another reminder, fossilization is a rare event and fossils are hard to find.


There have been no mutations that provide new information but there have been, and these are very limited, beneficial mutations. But, again, mutations, even beneficial ones, go the wrong way for evolutionists. They are a loss of information.

P.S. What is the current popular model for the creation of the universe? (I know it changes often)

The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection is nondirectional-should the enviroment change or the selective pressure be removed, those organisms with previously selected for characteristics are typically less able to deal with the changes and may be selected against. The term "evolution" cannot be used in the context of describing what natural selection can accomplish. Antibiotics are natural products produced by fungi and bacteria and the antibiotics we use today are typically derivatives of those. Because of this relationship, it is not surprising that some bacteria would have resistance to certain antibiotics. They must do so to be competitive. Bacterium can gain resistance through two ways:

Losing Genetic Info
a design feature to swap DNA-gaining it from another bacterium

No, it says that they have managed to form them. In fact, that's the whole point of the article.


In as much as evolution is a theory meant to explain what happened afterlife arose, the theories as to how life arose are not, by definition, evolutionary. However, they are compatible with evolution. In fact, the clay theory is essentially an application of evolutionary theory to inorganic compounds.


This has nothing to do, strictly speaking, with evolution, which is a theory, as I said, as to what happens with species after they get going. That life did arise is self-evident. Evolution explains what happens after that. As it not not meant to explain more than that, its inability to do so is not a flaw.


Scientists like Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Werner Gitt are wrong, as virtually all serious biologists agree. The validity of the theory doesn't hinge on who has the most PhDs on its side, of course (even though the evolutionists win hands down by that standard too) but by such things as predictive power, which is firmly in favor of the theory. If you are actually interested in learning why Spetner and Gitt are wrong, feel free to read some of the articles listed here: home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm


It seems absurd to think that the earth revolves around the sun when we can clearly see that it is the sun that moves through the sky. Nevertheless, the earth does in fact revolve around the sun, and selective breeding could turn a dog into a creature very like a snake (though the chances of reaching the exact genetic code of an actual snake would be very, very slim). It could probably be got to the point where it looked exactly like a snake, though. It would of course take millions of years. I suspect you are incapable of grasping time intervals of that length.


No matter how many times you repeat something that isn't true, it remains false.


This isn't a problem for evolutionists at all. It is, however, a truthful statement about what they believe, so you should get some credit for that.

But if life did not evolve or did not come about by random chance the theory of evolution would be disproved.


Man I wish I could quote the article on this forum. Read the 4th or 5th paragraph and you will see what I mean. The point of the article is to show that scientists have shown how it could/might happen. But they have tried many possible ways and none of them have worked.


Has there been any documented mutation that adds information to the genetic code?


So you just disproved evolution as the earth is not millions of years old! To have to look like a snake the dog would have to have its genetic information. Otherwise it would be a dog that looked like a snake.


But if the very process by which evolutionists say it occurs can have the opposite effect doesn't that mean the process could just go in a circle and never form a new species?

The fossil record does not prove evolution because of all the missing links. As Darwin himself said, (Can I quote him? Its not from a website and it is from his book. Until I get an answer I'll paraphrase) Evolution says that there are many transitions and there should be many links from different species. This has not been shown in the fossil record and is the most grievous argument against the theory of evolution.

Just a question, Is a computer more basic than a cell?

P.S. What is the current popular theory for the formation of the Universe?

Actually, even if the first single-celled creatures were magically created however many billion of years ago, evolution would still work just fine at explaining how they evolved into us. As it is, there are several scientific theories as to how those first single-celled creatures got going, none of which involve magic.


That part of the article is describing the state of affairs that existed before the experiment described in the rest of the article.


Yes, several examples appear in the articles that I pointed you to. In fact, the very first one explains how you can do this is a lab with bacteria by getting them to evolve a resistance to a particular chemical. It also explains why the arguments against this example by the people you cited are wrong. Many of the other articles deconstruct the Creationist arguments in even more detail.


Lol, that's cute.


Indeed it does. In fact, that's why some species have essentially stopped evolving, and are still the same as they were millions of years ago. That the process could and sometimes does go in a circle doesn't mean it always does.


Again, you just don't understand the theory of evolution. Or how genetics works in general, for that matter. This is just wrong. Many phenotypical features have evolved independently several times (presumably because the environments of the creatures that evolved them favored them). According to your logic, wolves and chiuauas don't have the same genetic information, because they don't have the same phenotype. Yet they are genetically similar enough to be the same species, despite the apparent differences. In the same way, two creatures could be genetically different enough to be separate species, yet still have evolved to look alike.

But where did the first cell come from? Where did it get the genetic information to produce trillions and trillions of different types of cells? What about the Scientific Law I talked about that you haven't addressed? (The law of Biogenesis) If evolution where true we would not have this law that says through all of scientific history life has only come from life.


Not what I am trying to say. The wolf has all of the genetic information in it that a Chihuahua has. The Chihuahua has just lost the major components that would override the other genetic information. (Might have used the wrong words)


Has there been any documented use of natural selection to make a new species?


I showed how each of the examples have either been proved to be impossible or would kill life with the chemicals necessary to make it!

How was the universe made? I say God created it!

Dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats, and people are still people, just the way He made them!

No one believes that the first cell had that much genetic information. The first single-celled organisms were very simple, and gradually became more complex over time. How the first single-celled organisms arose is a matter of scientific debate, but eventually we will succeed at replicating the process in a lab, and then we'll know.


Exactly, the phenotypical differences don't matter, only the genetic ones. Same with the snake. There are other species that exist even now that look like snakes, yet are not snakes because their genetic make-up is so different. So, over time, a dog could easily evolve into a snake-like organism, one that would be a unique species. It would be very unlikely, though, to evolve into a snake. Species evolve into new species, not into each other.


No, you asserted it. You couldn't prove it, because it isn't true. This is not a one-off experiment that no one can replicate. Anyone who has access to a basic lab (or who wants to set one up in his basement, for that matter) can carry out the experiments described in the first article on the website I pointed you to, and see for themselves that mutations can indeed add information to a genome. This is the great power of science -- no matter how strongly you personally refuse to believe something, anyone who really wants to know the truth can verify the science for themselves.


Excellent, and where did God come from? You could say He always existed, of course, but then why not just say the universe always existed? That would be simpler.

Never mind, that was a rhetorical question. You admit that you prefer faith to reason, religion to science, and that is perfectly all right -- you have a right to think that way, if you wish. However, that way of thinking is always a form of deliberate closed-mindedness, and makes continuing the debate with you pointless. Fortunately, I knew that in advance, and was not hoping to convince you. I merely wanted to ensure that other people using this forum who stumbled on this thread would see both sides of the issue. In one sense, Creationists are not worth refuting, and are better off just being ignored. Evolution is sound science, and its power as a theory ensures it, or some variation thereof, will always be the bedrock of modern biology. In that way, Creationists are sort of like communities that shun the use of technology -- quaint, and sort of amusing to those of us who are not a part of them, but otherwise harmless, in that they are unlikely to convince humanity to suddenly revert to pre-industrial times. Still, too many today lack the critical thinking skills to counter Creationist arguments without some help, so here we are.

Wow! Great words of wisdom! I guess I keep trying to refute evolution because it grieves me to see people led astray and believing in a lie, thinking there is a scientific explanation for everything!

Why does the search for truth matter to anyone? In this case, though, I have several reasons for defending this particular theory:

1) It is, as I said, really powerful. I'm not sure you realize just how powerful and useful a theory evolution is. It explains resistances that evolve in bacteria and vermin, as I've mentioned. It unifies the whole field of biology. It predicted genetics, and is therefore implicated in every form of biotech we have and are ever going to develop. It can be applied to the study of cultures, enriching anthropology and sociology. I recently read an excellent article that explained the existence of religion in evolutionary terms, for instance. It is opening up new vistas in computer science, too. Evolutionary algorthims have been used to create programs that can create better designs for various machines than humans can think of. They are being adapted as we speak to create a program that will be able to come up with new scientific theories.

2) There is no scientific case against evolution. Unfortunately, there are pseudoscientific arguments advanced by religious zealots that can easily lead people astray, as it were, who don't have a scientific background. It's one thing for a person to refuse to accept truths that make him or her psychologically uncomfortable. It is quite another to try to drag other people away from the light of knowledge and into the darkness of ignorance. I intensely dislike deception and falsehood, and the creationist case consists mostly of those two things. I suppose what it comes down to is that I don't believe anyone who has seriously considered the science impartially and with an open mind could actually reject the theory of evolution. This puts it in a category of it own, as far as I am concerned. I don't feel that way about, say, abortion, gun control, euthanasia, stem cell research, whether God exists, or any of the other controversial issues that sometimes crop up on this site. I have opinions on them, of course, but I understand that there is a genuine case to be made for both sides, and that the people who disagree with me may do so in good faith, as it were. Whereas, on this issue, I believe the people who disagree with me know perfectly well they are wrong -- they just don't want to accept the implications of the theory, and so refuse to admit it. Which leads us to . . .

3) The people who argue against evolution don't really disbelieve in it as a scientific theory. They disbelieve in science itself, as Nicholas's last post makes perfectly evident. They suspect that if science is wholly embraced by the public, religion must wither and die. In this, they might be right, I suppose. Still, if the choice is between science and religion, between the 21st century and the 14th, I know which one I'd choose. This too seems like a choice between two such different things that it is worth defending the right choice.


I am not foisting my beliefs on anybody. I am merely making sure that anyone who reads this thread will have access to both sides of the issue -- the case I have made, and the case Nicholas has made. If you believe that I have the stronger case, and that therefore most readers will tend to agree with me, well, then, that's encouraging to hear, but being the most convincing poster on the forum is not the same as foisting. That would require me to, say, to start deleting posts I disagreed with.

What happens when you NEVER succeed?


Was that the Wikipedia Article? If you believe that an intelligent person can do this isn't this almost like you believing in intelligent design? I have a hard time believing that mutations, that happen by random chance, would have enough added information to make a new species.


Lets list some of the holes in it shall we? There has been no proof of evolution. It violates scientific laws like the law I have brought up an you haven't addressed, the law of Biogenesis. Even in the articles you provided links to it didn't give an example of mutations increasing the amount of information. All that they did was show how since vertebrates have a higher gene count than a yeast evolution must be able to add information. Faulty Logic.


How do evolutionists think the universe universe existed? There was nothing NOTHING! and then somehow a small chunk of matter appeared and exploded! From that small chunk of matter all the planets, stars, moons, and asteroids were made. Likely Story!


Wow! Great logic! If I say something and you believe it isn't true that doesn't mean that I couldn't prove it!

There are some things that you haven't answered.
The Missing Missing Links...
The Law of Biogenesis...
Question: Is a computer more basic than a Cell?...
Probably more I just can't remember them right now!

No, the first article on the other website I linked to.


There has been all sorts of proof -- that's why all serious biologists accept the theory, why, in fact, acceptance of the theory is pretty much a necessary part of what it means to be a serious biologist.


Again, you are making false statements. Evolution doesn't violate the law of biogenesis. It is not a theory that deals with the origins of the first single-celled organisms, but a theory that deals with how complex multicellular species come about after that, and so doesn't even deal with the same questions. Besides, biogenesis states only that modern organisms don't spontaneously arise from non-life. So, no flies appearing by magic on rotten meat. Biogenesis remains silent on the question of how life started in the first place. So, I guess we can add biogenesis to the long list of scientific theories you don't understand.


This is what I mean about creationism relying on dishonesty and lies. This simply isn't the case. The very first article on the list explained how, in a lab, anyone could perform an experiment that would show mutation adding information in bacteria. Another one listed various mechanisms that permit the addition of information, including duplication and polyploidy. You deliberately chose to ignore this in order to fasten on some other, irrelevant piece of information you could use a straw man.


That would be a question for a different field of science.


No, you misunderstand, yet again. I was saying that you clearly couldn't prove something that is false. Not something that "I believe" to be false, but something that actually is demonstrably false. Again, the thing you are arguing is impossible is something that anyone who cares to go into a university lab can see for themselves. No amount of dissembling is going to help you in such a case.


Again, this is a "problem" with evolution according to creationists, because they persist in deliberately misunderstanding the theory, which doesn't posit the existence of a "missing link" in the first place. It predicts what in fact we see in the fossil record -- gradual changes between species over time, with no clear line demarcating them. The "missing link" argument only works if you believe evolution predicts the discovery of clearly delineated intermediate species, which it doesn't.

It is actually a law...


This is not new information... This is Duplication (making more of the same genes).


What proof? Has there been a documented change of a dog into a new species? That is what evolution is!!!!


So you would have to have some half fish half bird (or some other thing like that) in the fossil record. Eventually, according to you, gradual changes have turned something into a new species. We should find the midpoint of the two animals in the fossil record.


Hey I'm not running a smear campaign on evolution and I'm not relying on lies. (Although from your point of view everything I say is a lie.)


So the LAW of Biogenesis says there was an exception at the beginning of time and life sprang from non-life, but after that life can only come from life?


Yes you were only saying that people like you with the same worldview who have been taught evolution all through school and go into an evolutionary lab would agree that what I said is false. Wow they (and you) have great logic and are clearly unbiased...

A semantic distinction, but if it makes you feel better, I'll rephrase: We can add biogenesis to the list of scientific theories and law that you do not understand.


But of course, if you have an organism with 10 genes, and duplication leads to its offspring having 12 genes, then it has more genes. These extra genes then have much more room to mutate without harming the organism. For instance, in an organism with a single copy of a gene vital to the operation of the eye, that gene cannot mutate without being harmful to the creature that possess it. In an organism with two copies of that gene, however, the mutation of only one of the copies might lead to an improvement in the creature. So, in the example above, the 2 extra genes could, over time, both mutate to perform different functions within the creature. The creature's genome would not have lost information, as the information the genes originally contained would still exist in the first 10 genes. The genome, however, would then contain the new information coded for by the two extra, mutated genes. Thus, mutation would have added information to the genome.


No, the LAW of biogenesis says that complex, mulitcellular life doesn't spring into being fully formed from nothing. It says nothing about how extremely simple, rudimentary forms of single-celled life, or even of life so primitive it would not even have a cell, got going. It also has nothing to do with evolution, except to make it more likely, as species have to change and appear somehow, rather than just springing into being fully formed, which biogenesis would not allow.


No, that will be one example of evolution, if and when it occurs. As for the proof, that would be the fossil record and all of the experiments described in the articles I referenced, that you refuse to read about or to properly understand.


No, you wouldn't. This is an argument based on the Great Chain of Being, which is the religious theory that evolution replaced. We do, however, find many fossils that contain features of both earlier and later creatures believed to be related to it, which is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts.


Exactly! We believe that, if something can be shown to be true in a lab, repeatedly, then it is in fact true. You believe that if something can be shown to be true, in a lab, repeatedly, then it is . . . what, if it contradicts your pre-expectations? An illusion created by the devil? I don't know.

Though there are many points to be made on both ends of the spectrum, it is my assumption that either of you guys will never, ever fold to the "other side". All I am reading is practically an internet landfill of stuborness and redundancy.

I will add, though, that it is quite amusing- so by all means carry on.

That is an excellent metaphor! I am jealous, and wish I had thought of it. Before moving the posts from their original thread, I had stated that the debate would be pointless, because the gulf between me and Nicholas was too great ever to be bridged. However, I was wrong, in that most very passionate debates probably involve people who will never, ever convince each other. Nevertheless, the debate itself forces one to clarify one's views, or even just to articulate existing ones more clearly. At the same time, the debate may introduce new arguments that one had never considered. At first, for instance, in this debate, I thought Nicholas's statement that mutations cannot add information to the genome was merely a statement of ignorance. Then, I learned that it reflected a carefully constructed line of argument against evolution, one that, if it had come up in conversation before, I would have not been able to immediately refute. After doing more research, however, I have a much better idea of how evolution works, and so can offer a strong refutation. This experience has also strengthened my belief in evolution, just as, if my research had uncovered evidence in Nicholas's favor, then my belief would have been weakened, though probably not sufficiently to immediately cause me to discard it. The debate may also prove useful to those who have no strong opinion of their own, and who are seeking to understand the arguments of each side, so as to formulate a stance.

I hope I am not too late to help inform readers and debaters about the two sides of this debate becoming one.

IF we portray evolution as it was portrayed in 1888 in a book called THE SECRET DOCTRINE, we would have a much more rounded approach to life on earth and how it occurs. Rounded because rather than show evolution as occurring in response to survival mechanisms, we show life as being a design of interaction and progressive change with a direction that is presented. In other words, one "higher" kingdom presents a goal of life (themselves) for the "lower kingdom."

What has happened is that the debate between the two "populated" sides of science and religion has ignored a newcomer. The theory of evolution that I am about to present is not well known by either group.

Seven human races (similarly seven stages in each of these kingdoms: mineral, plant, animal) are described as constituting the period of time that humans spend on this globe, our earth. The first three races are "descending" races that interact with a lower kingdom because the animal kingdom occupies the earth when the human kingdom arrives. The humans are largely non-physical and by "pairing" with the most developed bodies that are here on the earth, they become more and more a part of the life of the lower kingdom until progress jumps a level to the 2nd race: two kingdoms exist simultaneously in one body and again to the 3rd race: the animal kingdom is ascended into a non-physical state. When the 4th race begins, there are no more evolving animals on earth.

Instead of expressing evolution as was done by H.P. Blavatsky in response to Darwin's 1859 work, intelligentsia could not combine the logic in H.P.B.'s 7 races in a way that became understandable to the population at large. One of the results of my own research with the work of H.P. Blavatsky and theosophists, in general, is that I also explored a group that began in the 1930s called The Saint Germain Foundation. With detailed investigation and lifestyle that permitted this research into the written material, I combined the two organizations material in a way that permitted me to view and present the theory given by H.P.B. by taking it further than the 4th race.

During the current 5th race, we humans exist with a higher kingdom "invading" us and this higher kingdom I named the girasas kingdom. As this kingdom descends into us, we observe them and become more like them because we can appreciate their advancements. This kingdom is told to us by Jesus Christ and so Christianity (as well as the other religions) combine with a fossil record to continue an evolutionary process that isn't easy to understand let alone communicate.

With two more races, until humanity "graduates" off this planet, a 6th race will begin in approx. 400,000 years and last for approx. 6 million years. A 7th race may last 4 million years and then our descent into evolving animals begins again on a new globe.

This theory of evolution does not argue that evolution is occurring. The real argument lies in the process of knowing and seeking knowledge. Do we seek through old records and find early races? Or do we seek further communications and acquaintances with the girasas kingdom to make the best use of our time and resources?

I have a webpage that can be located by searching the word girasas and have written extensively about the subject via the internet, but I still have not garnered attention to this version of evolution. If you have questions about what we see around us as animals and plants, I have learned through reading that these forms are actually the entire gamut of animal and gamut of plant whereas when the kingdom itself is on our earth, only half of its accomplished form is viewable. There is a 3rd group of life that is currently not recognized and which is essential for this theory of evolution to work: angelic kingdoms. It is an involving angelic kingdom that accompanies each evolving kingdom that takes the forms we find in the environment of each and which lives in these forms for our human purposes but which leaves when we leave and is likely traded with the lower kingdom so that we will receive angelic lives from the girasas and we will pass some of our angels to the lower kingdom of animals when we encounter them so the involution of the angels can occur and so that the environment can change and improve for the kingdom when it takes form again.

It would be so fascinating to me to see the idea become public knowledge. Do you have any suggestions about how I could succeed in making it so?

I have lots of things I'd like to talk about.

Why does it take so long for the idea's reception?
Why do they hide things from us? Write in codes and scatter hints?
How can we decide and direct the qualifications of those who engage in contact?

Do you think there are so many people against sharing our bodies with a new "descending" kingdom that they won't allow the idea to be heard or discussed?