>Perhaps Glenn can give examples where "Christian apologists" claim
>that "millions" of "mutations" are needed "in order to change from
>one species to another"?
>
Here is what I have found.
"Mutations are rare and almost always harmful, and yet great
numbers of favorable mutations must accumulate to produce a new
kind. Thus mutation by itself is clearly incapable of overcoming
entropy - in fact it is a prime example of the entropy principle in
operation!"~Henry M. Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, (San
Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 138
"Yet mutation is the only mechanism scientists have proposed to generate
the 'new' genetic information needed for evolutionary change in the
molecules-to-man model. This presents an enormous problem for the
evolution model, especially when we learn that mutation in a gene is a
rare event.
"How could life have evolved into all its millions of forms if the
very mechanism that causes it to evolve(mutation) is a rare event?"~Jobe
Martin, _The Evolution of a Creationist_ Biblical Discipleship Publishers,
1994, p. 149
And there is the logic. Phillip Johnson wrote:
"If neo-Darwinism were true, somewhere there should be a
universe of transitional intermediates, as Darwin said there had to
be. Where is it?" Phillip Johnson, "Darwinism: Science or
Naturalistic Philosophy?" Origins Research, Fall/Winter 1994, p. 6
And Gish wrote:
"The number of transitional forms that would have lived and died
during the vast time spean required for the billions times
billions. If evolution is true, museums should have an immense
storehouse of the fossil transistional forms. Yet, not one has
ever been found!"~Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics,
(El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1993), p. 126-127
They agree that a transitional form must be a mutation from the original
species. If there are billions upon billions of transitions, this
requires billions upon billions of mutations. Since each transition is
considered to be a mutation, there must also be a "universe" of mutations.
And what is amazing Stephen is that on 95-07-19 17:41:28 EDT the
creationist, Stephen Jones, argued for this same position that millions of
mutations are required. You wrote:
>The real issue, is not transitional forms, but genetic mutations and
>the rates they occur. Behind change in form is genetic change by
>random point mutations. Dawkins points out that "the very heart of
>the evolution theory, which gives it the power to dissolve
>astronomical improbabilities and explain prodigies of apparent
>miracle" is "slow, gradual, cumulative natural selection" (Dawkins R.,
>"The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin, p318).
...
>Dawkins also rejects punctuated equilibria as an explanation of
>major evolutionary change, except in special cases:
>
>"If there are versions of the evolution theory that deny slow
>gradualism, and deny the central role of natural selection, they may
>be true in particular cases. But they cannot be the whole
>truth..." (Dawkins, p318).
>
>Denton agrees that punctuated equilibria, with its emphasis on rapid
>speciation in small, isolated populations, is inadequate to explain
>the major gaps in the fossil record:
>
>"While Eldredge and Gould's model is a perfectly reasonable
>explanation of the gaps between species (and, in my view, correct) it
>is doubtful if it can be extended to explain the larger systematic
>gaps. The gaps which separate species: dog/fox, rat/mouse etc are
>utterly trivial compared with, say, that between a primitive
>terrestrial mammal and a whale or a primitive terrestrial reptile and
>an Ichthyosaur; and even these relatively major discontinuities are
>trivial alongside those which divide major phyla such as molluscs and
>arthropods. Such major discontinuities simply could not, unless we
>are to believe in miracles, have been crossed in geologically short
>periods of time through one or two transitional species occupying
>restricted geographical areas" (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in
>Crisis",1985, Burnett Books, p193)
>
>Therefore the change from a mesonychid to a whale can only occur in
>Darwinist evolution, by "slow, gradual, cumulative natural selection":
It would be well if you tried to remember what you argued for yesterday.
:-)
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm