Maybe we can agree on some common points. Let me suggest:
1) The experiments Glenn cites are evidence for common ancestry, or at
least the strong appearance of common ancestry. (This fits into either
theistic evolution or progressive creation. The experiments themselves
cannot tell whether the new developmental genes in creature B arose from a
sequence of "natural" mutations, or _ex_nihilo_ creation of a new gene
SIMILAR to A's, or anything in between.)
2) The fact that the experiments were performed by an intelligent agent is
a moot point. Both T.E. and P.C.-with-common-ancestry predict the same
result from the experiment, so the experiment doesn't preferentially
support one or the other in that respect.
3) In order to "prove" evolutionary development from A to B (insofar as
any such hypothesis can be "proved"), we would have to find a mutational
pathway through viable genomic phase space which was sufficiently "short"
(to allow for a realistic rate of mutations and substitution into the
population). To _disprove_ evolutionary development, we would have to
show that there is NO "sufficiently short or viable" pathway. The
experiments which Glenn cites are just a begining, sort of a signpost on
the path. They show that a small part of the pathway is shorter than we
might otherwise have expected, but a lot more work will have to be done to
settle the issue.
Is that reasonable, or am I just starting a new argument? :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to make everyone's day a little more surreal. | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
(p.s. No more posts from me for two weeks. Vacation!!!)