Actually to Morris's credit he notes that some mutations (.1%) are not
bad. Also, from my sense of his writings I believe that he has limited
his comments on the 2nd law to the area of mutations and in fact
believes that the other mechanisms are in essence a zero-sum gain WRT
any evolutionary change. "Bad" mutations may have been lost through time
or may have detracted from viability in subtle ways.
"Mere reshuffling of genetic factors already present is not evolution.
This process corresponds analogically to energy transformations in a
physical system, with nothing really gained or added - just the form has
changed. " Morris, The Twilight of Evolution page 42.
Morris appears willing to accept limited re-arrangement within the
original biological unit or "kind". I guess the question remains as to
whether the evidence exists to convincingly show that "major"
re-arrangements even occurred. Thus Morris, like most creationists, are
willing to accept the mechanisms that we have been able to see
demonstrated in the laboratory or the field and are willing to work them
into their model. It is the extrapolation of those mechanisms beyond the
observable evidence in TE that is not accepted.
PD>>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?
>
GM>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.
If it was you brought it back well! ;-)
Note that I did not use the word complex.... simply the question was
whether or not the observed mechanisms are presupposed to result in
vertical development up the taxonomic tree as many evolutionists
contend? Whether this means from the roots or off of a branch, is
evolution presupposed? The question probably answers itself.
It appears that we agree that they simply represent change. The question
remains on what direction that change goes... horizontal, vertical,
downward, and perhaps simply nowhere?... and to what extent?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rv:4:11: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for
thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Durham
Oakland, Maryland
pdd@gcc.cc.md.us
to: IN:evolution@calvin.edu
cc: IN:GRMorton@gnn.com