On Tue 25 Jul 1995 12:05 CT you wrote:
>David Tyler wrote:
DT>"Glenn needs to ask questions about evidence for unlimited
>variation to neoDarwinists - this is vital evidence for their theory!
>Without it, neoDarwinism is not truly a science."
GM>It seems to me that everyone pushes the limits of variation quite
>far. Even YEC's like Gish and Morris believe that the dog-kind gave
>rise to foxes coyotes, wolves, hyaena's and the like. And if the YEC
>view of the flood is correct than all kulans, horses, zebras, asses
>etc must have arisen since the flood. That is a lot of variation
>especially when you consider that these equines have different
>chromosome numbers.It seems to me that evidence for rapid change is
>vital to the YEC view.
Yes. This is a major weakness in YEC.
GM>PC advocates also accept some change, but never allow the big
>changes. It seems to me that evidence for a limitation is vital to
>their theory. Without that limit their view has no raison d'etre.
It's not a question of PC never allowing the "big changes". After 130
years of trying Darwinists have never produced a clear explanation of
a mechanism that could produce these "big changes". It is entirely
reasonably that PC would believe that there is no mechanism, and that
God made them directly.
Even some TE's must invoke God's direct action in some of these "big
changes", eg. the origin of life and man. If God is necessary to
explain some "big changes", why not others?
GM>I do not see in the scripture a clear statement that God engaged in
PC.
Disagee. What is the primary picture of God in Genesis 1, but that of
a God who creates progressively over time?
Apart from that, the Bible as a whole says a great deal about God
being the type of God who intervenes directly in this world to make
major changes at strategic points. PC just assumes this same God
worked the same way in creation.
GM>He might have under certain assumptions but the biggest reason for
>PC is the evidence of change in the fossil record.
Agreed. PC is a model of origins that takes into account the genuine
findings of science.
GM>Evolutionists it is true believe in lots of change. But no limit
>has been experimentally observed. If PC or YEC's want to destroy
>evolution with one experiment, then the way to do it is
>experimentally prove there is a limitation to morphological
>variability.
I can hardly believe you wrote this, Glenn! :-) The 100% result of
*all* such experiments has been that there *are* definite limits to
biological change and therefore evolution (ie. macro-evolution) *has*
been destroyed (by your definition)!
If you disagree with this, please post *one* example of an experiment
that produced a change above the species level.
God bless.
Stephen