At 08:07 PM 11/10/97 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>Obviously there has been descent with modification. And evolution (which
>means opening out or unfolding) would be an excellent word for in, except
>that in our culture it connotes "molecules to man" which is an extreme
>extrapolation of the observable data. So I stay with the words adaptation
>or speciation or descent with modification, but not evolution.
Let me point out that the data you seek may lie in paleontology. It is a
fact that Man is not found in rocks earlier than the Pliocene. Primates are
not found in rocks beneath the Eocene. Mammals are not found in rocks
beneath the Triassic. Reptiles are not found beneath the Pennsylvanian (I
recall). Amphibians are not found in rocks below the upper devonian. Fish
are not found beneath the Cambrian, yet invertebrates are aa are
multicellular forms of algae. As one goes back to rocks of the lower
precambrian, you loose the multicelluar forms.
That I am saying is that the data does support at least a single cell to
man, if not a molecules to man scenario. Explain the pattern of the fossil
succession if not by evolution or special creation mimicking evolution.
>Right. There is still some speciation going on, but not at rates anything
>like this. Viewing this mostly paleobotanically (but remembering the
>animals too), I see a tremendous burgeoning of speciation in the immediate
>postflood decades, when populations were spreading into wide open niches.
>The resulting forms are more specialized, with less adaptability. To take
>an example among the animals, rabbits that have survived in dry places as
>deserts have spread, and rabbits which have adapted to arctic conditions
>may no longer be able to interbreed, and may no longer be able to adapt to
>as much environmental change now. It is well known that specialized forms
>have less adaptability.
>
Why did we not see rabbits speciate rapidly when they were brought to
Australia and spread through their wide open ecological niches?
>>But I thought you had said that 4 generation was about the limit to any
>>change that could occur.
>
>I heard that some plant breeders say that today 4 generations pushes the
>limits.
>It may have been more generations in the past. And there were many
>extinctions.
>
Here is where I had problems even when I was a young-earth creationist. It
was too easy to have it both ways. To pick on your example above, when I
needed a 4 generation limit, I could have a four generation limit. But if a
problem came along that required a 100 generation limit, I could have that
also and not see any contradiction. A good theory should stand pat and let
the data and problems direct where one must research or whether or not the
theory dies. A bad theory changes like a chameleon to fit any circumstance
whatsoever.
>Thank you for the list and the reference. I remember pouring over pictures
>of the chromosomes of various animals years ago. You can guess which ones
>split or fused. Do you have a reference that shows the pictures?
I would have to dig through my files to find pictures. I don't remember one
off the top of my head.
>>What you are proposing is that all this chromosomal rearrangement took place
>>almost instantaneously after the flood. We know most of the foxes, jackals,
>>dogs and wolves were intact during the Egyptian Dynasties. But strangely, it
>>doesn't happen as rapidly anymore. What happened?
>>
>
>Some of the genetic "get up and go" got up and went. The world is getting old.
This is a case that you can easily adapt your theory whatever comes along.
A theory that has meat in it, should not be able to slither off the butcher
block. It should be able to take the stabs from the knife and survive.
>>How many years long do you envision each of the [geologic]periods to be?
>>>
>>>
>I don't know. I believe glaciation came less than 1000 years after the Flood.
>In a few centuries a lot of migration and extinction can take place, with
>adaptation producing varieties that would paleontologically be called
>species.
Once again a problem with young-earth theories. By not being specific, one
never risks being wrong. But then one can never feel the thrill of being
right either.
>In the Eocene, there are some abundant fossils, like the turtles in the
>Bridger.
>Many of those are found buried upside down. Possibly dead before
>emplacement. "Immediate postflood" conditions may be at different levels in
>different areas.
>
OK, so if the Eocene is the immediate post flood period, are you saying that
the Cretaceous/tertiary boundary is the end of the flood? That all rocks
prior to the tertiary are flood deposited? Remember a good theory should be
specific.
>I appreciate the dialog.
I enjoy it also. I wish the young-earthers would let me on their internet
bulletin boards. I would have lots of fun. :-)
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm