Bev and Jerry:

You are right. Moons of Jupiter they are. Rings of Saturn they are. Robomatic confus'ed was.

I should also add that the term 'Descent of Man' comes from the title of a book Darwin released years after Origin of the Species, and he DID get into the races of man. You can find it on the web, and it is absolutely fascinating. At the time Darwin was writing, there were serious proponents that man was divided into species. This includes published works with 'evidence' that half breeds were sterile like mules. There was way more 'evidence' going the other way, and Darwin is not only putting forth his own ideas in the light of natural selection, but also 'going through the literature'. He did not miss the fact that there were several areas of the globe with major 'interbreeding' and no lack of virility. He did not miss the fact that while an isolated photo of an African tribesman might appear to indicate major differences with the white race, familiarity with ANY race accustomed one to major diversity within any population. He also had met and conversed with people of widely different races in his travels, and felt that behaviorally all men were more similar than not.

Grok, your questions are welcome argumentative or not. I would repeat what has been said twice above. Evolution is simply the way we express that there is plenty of evidence that things have changed among life forms over time. Skeletal remains of animals that no longer exist, remains of animals that look like animals we know, but have radically different size, shape, proporitons. Evidence of major changes over short periods for humanlike critters, and evidence of negligible changes for animals such as crocodiles, which pre-dated dinosaurs. You can call it all the whim of the lord and case closed. You can put a bit more work into it, as Darwin did, and come up with Natural Selection.

When I was browsing a bit earlier, I saw that Lamarckian theory of evolution, which was 18th century, was attacked by Lyell in the early part of the 19th century. There was an 'evolution' of the theory of evolution, and there is one major camp remaining among creditable scientists, that of Darwinian or Natural Selection. There is ONE camp, with a few subdivisions as more of the theory is teased out. creationism is not a viable camp. The mere fact that a creationist can open a book of evolution and look for unanswered questions, and then repeat them in a meeting of non experts and insist this is a sign of the utter wrongness of the theory is not unlike coming from a society that cannot build its own aircraft, commandeering an aircraft from a more advanced society, flying it into a building, and using this as a sign that one is superior over the more technological society.

Think about it. That question I asked upstairs about speciation is not capable of being derived from the creationist camp. They have to borrow the very language of the Evolutionists in order to challenge them, because their way hasn't even advanced the concepts.