On Tue, 6 Jun 1995 22:23:45 -0400 you wrote:
>I will only answer a few things in Stephen Jones post. I am running out of
>time.
>
>Stephen wrote:
>What "tells" evolution anything? This is intelligent design and
>artificial selction."
>
>The same thing that is telling the I'wis to alther their bills. Those with
>altered bills are surviving
Yes. But this is not "evolution" (ie. macro-evolution) nor is it
"telling". Darwinists should not use misleading teleological
terminology, when they claim there theory is only about blind,
physical forces.
>Stephen wrote:
>But does it really answer Jim's questions? 1. "How should the
>environment know that a few more clubs are `better' "? and 2. "Unless
>the player with the most clubs `survives' the present hand, how is
>his position on the next deal a `cumulation'"?
>
>You second question answers the first. Until this century people with
>juvenile diabetes had a short life expectancy. How does the environment know
>that a functioning pancreas is better? The environment doesn't know
>anything, those with poorly functioning pancreas died in years past. Today,
>the environment has changed. They live because they can get daily injections
>of insulin. The survival of those with functioning pancreas meant that the
>next generation would be a culmination and for the most part have functioning
>pancreas.
This is fine by me. There is no "knowing" and no "evolution" here
either.
GM>Your quotations of paleontologists with your dismissal of the
>importance of what you term microevolution illustrates something
>important.
I don't dismiss "microevolution". I believe it reflects God's way of
devloping His original created basic types. I simply pointed out that
leading palaeontologists like Gould make a clear distinction between
the origin of major and minor taxonomic groups. This is of course what
Progressive Creationists like Carnell (1948) and Ramm (1955) predicted
while Gould was in short pants.
GM>The
>paleontologists are talking about the large morphological gaps between the
>higher orders. I was talking to Jim about the smaller changes which he
>thought didn't exist. We were not talking about the change between phyla.
I doubt if Jim said there were no smaller changes. Even
Creation-Scientists accept that there are "smaller changes". The
point is that there *are* "large morphological gaps between the higher
orders", which one would not have gleaned from your comments.
GM> But, since the evolution of one bird into another is merely
>microevolution, since it doesn't alter the basic body plan, what do
>;you, or anyone, call the amount of morphological difference between
>humans and the gorilla or chimpanzee? Their basic body plan is the
>same as ours.
Yes. I do not rule out that man, on the purely animal level may be a
modified proto-ape. I have already pointed out that Genesis regards
all life vegetable, animal and human as both having the same origin,
ie. from the earth (Gn 1:11,24, 2:7), and animals and man having the
same divine "breath of life" (Gn 1:30; 2:7; 6:17; 7:15,22). The only
difference in Genesis is that only man is made "in the image of God"
(Gn 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6). Since the Bible equates man's body with
"dust" (Gn 3:19; Ps 44:25; 103:14 ), I can see no Biblical reason why
all life could not have been made from previous genetic material. The
question of *how* God did it is the real issue.
>What I find fascinating is that we won't use the evolution of a
>horse into a kulan or a dog into a fox, as evidence of evolution
>because the differences are minor but if the above suggestion is made
>that the differences between man and ape are equally small, we get
>touchy. Is this consistent?
No, it is not "consistent" and it is not what I argue. My argument is
primarily at the theological/metaphysical/philosophical level, and
concerns the underlying principle of Biblical Theism and its
outworking in real time and space. Basically my argument is that the
evidence, taken as a whole, does not support Darwinism, but rather
supports what the Bible indicates, ie. a Progressive Creationism. In
other words, purely natural processes, while no doubt playing a part,
are insufficent to account for the universe and living world. As the
Bible depicts, it was absolutely necessary for God to intervene in
history to bring about the type of world we have.
>Stephen wrote quoting me first:
GM>Consider this: Does our galaxy orbit the local galactic group? The
>necessary changes in position on the sky of the other galaxies are
>far too small to even be measured. The only motion we can detect is
>line of sight motion. Extrapolation from the measured motion does
>not lead to an orbit, but to collisions with other galaxies.
>My point is this, if you believe that there is an orbit for our galaxy
>in the local cluster, then you believe in alteration of events which are too
>small to even measure. So why is there a sudden reluctance among many
>christians to disbelieve that small changes in the genetic composition
>eventually leads to major morphological change?
>
>SJ>Because there is no evidence that it does:
>
GM>So does this mean that you don't believe that the Galaxies are
>orbiting each other also? There is no direct evidence of that
>either.
Well if there is no "evidence" of it, why *should* I believe it? But
I really have no problem with it, either way.
OTOH I presume your response confirms that in fact "there is no direct
evidence" that "small changes in the genetic composition eventually
leads to major morphological change"? If that is the case, why do you
criticise "Christians" for their "reluctance..to disbelieve" it? <g>
Stephen