On Thu, 10 Aug 1995 12:27:18 GMT you wrote:
DT>ABSTRACT: The status of macroevolution is discussed in the light
>of comments from Loren.
DT>"Second, there seems to be no sharp line between microevolution
>and macroevolution. Consider the genetic and chromosomal
>differences between, say, sheep and goats, or cows and camels --
>which most of us on the reflector would, I believe, classify as
>microevolution. Even these are beyond the "limits" which we have
>so far induced by artificial breeding of animals. To call these
>"microevolution" is already somewhat of an extrapolation. Where
>then do you draw the line of limits, and how do you justify where
>you draw that line?"
This is something that I have been thinking about but have been afraid
to post! :-) It is common in creationist literature to accept micro-
evolution (eg. Darwin's finches, Peppered Moth, etc), as explicable by
natural causes, but not macro-evolution. Yet even some micro-evolution
may not be 100% explicable by natural causes. I accept that Darwin's
finches and the Peppered Moth are explicable by 100% natural causes,
but am not so sure about others. Variation within species is
empirically
demonstratably but I am not so sure about the production of *all* new
species or genera.
As a Progressive Creationist I do not rule out direct divine
intervention
even in some so-called micro-evolution, until it can be demonstrated
that a 100% natural mechanism exists in each case, that can get over
the limits to variation that so evidently inhibits selective breeding
in
the real world.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------