>David makes a good point.
>
>Morris actually takes this a step further and proposes it to be evidence
>of many changes from the original Biblical "kinds"... i.e. genetic
>variation, fragmentation, mutation, replacement, and speciation, within
>the original potentiality and limitations of that "kind". He has also
>suggested that it may in fact represent devolution away from the
>original "kind" rather than evolution.
>
According to Morris all change must be in the direction of the second law
i.e. downhill towards more disorder. Morris says that all mutations are
bad. So if all mutations are bad, how come such major re-arrangements of
the genetic material had so little effect?
Also if breakage of the chromosomes is a result of the second law, then
the species with the fewest chromosomes is the most ordered (least
decayed) being. Since the fruit fly has only 8 chromosomes, they are less
decayed than we poor miserable humans with 46 chromosomes. The garden pea
has 8 chromosomes. They too are better off.
>I was wondering whether evolutionists simply presuppose that these
>mechanisms inevitably result in a higher order of organisms (eventually
>leading up the taxonomic tree), or whether they can accept that they
>simply result in different organisms and any potentiality for vertical
>or horizontal change is still theoretical?
>
I think this argument is a red herring. There is nothing more inherently
complex about a mammal than a reptile or a fish. All have bones, all have
livers, stomachs, brains, eyes etc. etc. What exactly is more complex
about a mouse vs. a fish? Change is not to be divided between vertical and
horizontal. Change is change.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm