PD> Three questions remain... how God intervened, when God
> intervened, and why was it necessary to do so?
SJ> c) ...why was it necessary to do so?". Because natural processes
> (even with God's immanent providential governance) are inadequate to
> achieve the vertical increment of information necessary to create
> new higher taxa:
I agree that this is a possibility, but,
> "According to Grasse, evolving species acquire a new store of genetic
> information through "a phenomenon whose equivalent cannot be seen in
> the creatures living at the present time (either because it is not
> there or because we are unable to see it)." (Grasse P.P., "The
> Evolution of Living Organisms", 1977, p208, in Johnson P.E.,
> "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning", in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds.,
> "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and
> Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p8)
Minor objection:
Gene duplication has been seen recently. Genetic transfer between species
have been seen recently. Viruses are inserting themselves into genes all
over the place. Those seem like good first steps. I agree, that's ONLY
the first of several steps towards new genetic information, but I just
can't buy that "a phenomenon whose equivalent canNOT be seen ... at the
present time" phrase. It's claiming too much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You should always save hyperbole |
until you really need it." | Loren Haarsma
--Hobbes (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu