>I fully agree that the greater problems lie in geology and not in biology.
>But it's wrong that 'the entire issue of evolution lies inside of the
>rocks of the earth' .First, at least many evolutionists won't agree : I've
>rea dan article written by Mark Ridley( I think he's azoologist in
>Oxford), which says that the fact on evolution does NOT lie in the fossil
>record but ni observatins of biology.I don't have the article at hand but
>I can look it up and give you the reference or direct quotes.
>Second, the rocks can't tell us what kind of changes are POSSIBLE. If , as
>I think, only minor changes are possible one has to interpret the fossil
>record in adifferent way. A scientific explanation in historical
>sciences may never assume what we know to be impossible.
Maybe it is my professional hubris, but let me point something out. The
rocks do tell us what change is possible, Everything is absolutely changed
in rocks older than the upper Cretaceous. Assume for a moment that there
was no fossil record at all. Would the YEC argument that all evolution is
merely microevolution be valid? What would be the evidence for the common
descent of all species? Microevolution within kinds would be a quite
defendable position. There would be no need to think that birds arose from
dinosaurs, because there would be no dinosaurs. Amphibians could not be
said to have arisen from fish because there would be no panderichthyid fish
and no Acanthostega.
Observed evolutionary changes are minor. All the Paleozoic fossil forms are
DIFFERENT from species alive today. I have only been able to find one
species which is alive today which was also alive in the Upper Cretaceous.
It is a shark. As far as I can tell, all other individuals in those rocks
are morphologically and histologically different from living forms today.
Without the fossil record, we would not know that.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm