Can I pause from thinking about "God's intervention" and recall the
"Basic Types" thread from last year? It seems to me that it would
help clarify where real differences lie and what has to be
investigated to reach a conclusion.
Species, Genera, Families, etc are HUMAN terms used to describe
biological groups. They are fuzzy. Species, for example, is
notoriously fuzzy - it depends which taxonomist you are talking to!
Apart from the "lumpers" and "splitters", there are different
emphases placed on the different types of available data. The old
working definition of an interbreeding population is also fuzzy.
Hybridisation takes place between species and between genera.
The concept of a "Basic Type" is an attempt to introduce some
objectivity to the situation. The Basic Type is composed of members
which have such similar developmental pathways that
hybridisation linkages are feasible. It does not mean that A can
interbreed with B,C,D,E, etc; but that A can interbreed with B, which
in turn is linked to C, etc. The "Basic Type" can be researched, and
to date, it looks as though a workable rule of thumb is that "Basic
Types" are at or near the Family level in animals.
Both PCs and YECs have an interest in "Basic Types". The link is
with creatures which reproduce after their kind. That is, there is a
constraint which is represented by the developmental pathway. TEs
and non-theists may be tempted to say that the "Basic Type" has no
real meaning - the line has to be drawn somewhere.
However, this setting of the scene means that your definitions of
"evolution" and of "macro-evolution" are the common property of TEs,
PCs and YECs! They are terms that have no value as far as taking the
debate forward.
In my view, "proofs" of "evolution" or of "macroevolution" that are
within the Family category are totally missing the point. What is
needed is a demonstration that the proposed limits on variability
(ie within the Basic Type) can be breached. Only evidence which
shows variation crossing Family barriers (or higher level categories)
constitutes as evidence for the "Blind Watchmaker" version of
Darwinian evolution.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***