> Tony;Depends on who's popular belief you are talking about. I suspect that many religious people(which make up a large percentage of the population) would see this as a reasonable and logical order of events. 
> 
> 1) A lot of stuff got made.
> 2) People came along and screwed it up.
> 3) A lot of stuff died, and what didn't die, got progressively worse over time. 
> 
> Of course, that is a gross oversimplification, but still.-Sure fits theisitc evolution


> Tony:To DHW: How many times have I said this? This is essentially the same as, 'created according to their kind' in my language.-Theistic voluiotn, of course

DAVID: (quoting) "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on..."
 
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html#jCp
 
TONY: To DHW: How many times have I said this? This is essentially the same as, 'created according to their kind' in my language.-We come back, as always, to innovations.
 
QUOTE	: Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution. Equally intriguing is the manner in which some groups are able to break free from these constraints.
"Our results hint that this may hinge upon the evolution of new 'key innovations' that enable groups to exploit new resources or habitats, for example dinosaurs growing feathers and evolving wings or fish evolving legs and moving onto land to claim new territory."-It all points to the idea that within early life there was already a mechanism (let us call it the "intelligent cell/genome") which enabled organisms to adapt and innovate through the cooperation of cells and communities of cells. Adaptation and innovation come about through responses to changes in the environment ... either by necessity or because the changes allow for new organs and organisms. There's no mystery about constraints, or about forms reaching their limits early on. Once they're settled in their environment, and the environment itself is settled, why should they change? Nor is there a mystery about some groups breaking free. It all comes down to the adaptive and innovative intelligence within individual cell communities. The difference between this theory and Darwin's is that the changes are not random but are triggered by interaction between the environment and the genome.-I don't know how you can separate creation of "kinds" from the countless innovations that combine to make those "kinds". Are you saying that God invented vision, hearing, lungs, livers, nervous systems, digestive systems etc. etc. all at the same time, as it were 'in vacuo', and then incorporated them into the first mammals, fish, reptiles, birds, which were then left to evolve into their various species?
 
It seems to me that ALL the mysteries of evolution disappear once you accept the existence of the one basic mechanism, apart of course from how it originated in the first place. Attribute it to your God if you like, and that gives you "theistic evolution". Ah, Tony, how many times have I said this?