Steve responds:
>I think you have a misconception of evolutionary theory. The continuing
>presence of Drosophila sp. on the Hawaiin Islands is not evidence that macro
>evolution has not occured. There is no a priori necessity for a putative
>transitional species to become fully extinct during its putative evolution
>into a new species, genus, whatever. If Drosophila had mutated into a new
>genus (and not just into a new species), how would you know it?
Nah, I don't. No evolutionist has ever suggested any form on the Hawaiian
Islands that is not a Drosophila was derived from a species that was. But
you have correctly stated the case: How would you (or anybody else) know?
Therefore any argument for evolution beyond what can be observed
(proliferation of many species of a single genus) is specious. The evidence
clearly favors limits. Why is all this argumentation arising? Is it that
the evidence is not what was wanted? Clearly the observed evidence in each
case cited favors limitations. It is sound science to go with the case
unless specific examples of living organisms can be cited that are contrary.
I would appreciate some examples from the living biota that suggest
limitations do not exist.
Art