Yes of course. The similarity of body plans has its origin in the
mind of a common Designer. It also explains how such widely diverse
creatures such as the European placental world and the Tasmanian
marsupial wolf (Thylacine) have near identical features, yet are
according to evolution on widely separated branches of the
evolutionary tree.
>4. Fully formed, ie. lack of nascent structures (eg. 1/2 arm -
> 1/2 wing, etc)
>5. Large systematic gaps in the fossil record persisting
>6. Inability of naturalistic mechanisms to explain satisfactorily
> formation of complex organs (eg. eye, ear, bat, etc)
>7. Transitional forms extremely rare, but not non-existent.
>
MP>Why does it say that transitional forms would be rare?
See above. A Creator can create more directly and rapidly. See the
Adam and Eve example. Even if this is taken as symbolic, it teaches
that the Biblical Creator can directly create from a pre-existing form
(eg. Eve from Adam).
SJ>PE would tend to be falsified by either: a) better evidence closing
>gaps and making naturalistic mechanisms more feasible; or b) really
>plausible theoretical models explaining how naturalistic mechanism
>can account for gaps.
>
>What does PE stand for? And what is it?
Sorry Punctuated Equilibria. Briefly, a modification to Neo-Darwinism
proposed by USA palaeontologists Eldredge & Gould (1977). Based on
their experience (and Marxist philosophy?) of the "jerkiness" fossil
record. Basically holds that macro-evolution is not micro-evolution
extrapolated (as per Neo-Darwinism), but is based on larger scale
factors (eg. selection of entire species by extinction of
competitors, etc). Emphasises sudden appearance of fully formed major
changes, long stasis, and rapid extinction. Flirts with saltation
(ie. jumps) due to macro-mutations.
IMHO same arguments for PE could be used for PC. In fact Gould is the
most quoted evolutionist by YEC, and arguably he is the most important
contributor to Creation-Science after Morris and Gish! <g>
God bless.
Stephen