> I think you're right. Evolutionary links below the Family category are
> mostly undisputed (albeit largely unproven). The real "macroevolution"
> question is above the Family level. In many cases there are a small
> number of "chimeric" fossils above the family level, but that does not
> prove evolutionary links.
>
> What we really need, IMO, is extensive genomic comparisons --- both below
> and above the Family level...
Thanks. And your suggested research programme is certainly a valid
one.
> You're usually quite careful with your terminology, but I believe you
> fumbled on the last sentence:
> > Only evidence which
> > shows variation crossing Family barriers (or higher level categories)
> > constitutes as evidence for the "Blind Watchmaker" version of
> > Darwinian evolution.
>
> By that standard of "evidence" (i.e. something which distinguishes a
> theory from its rivals), even variation crossing Family barriers (or
> higher) will not be evidence for "Blind Watchmaker" evolution, because
> evolutionary creationism also expects it.
>
> I believe what you meant to say is, "Only evidence which shows variation
> crossing Family barriers (or higher) will DISTINGUISH macroevolution
> (theistic or naturalistic) from progressive creationism." (Or words to
> that effect.)
You are quite correct to point that out. I've had another post
privately saying the same. I am most willing to amend my fumble.
I think I was struggling over which terms to use - the
"macroevolution" in your suggested revision is one of the terms we
are trying to define!
Thanks,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***