Thank you for reminding me of this paper. I read it some time ago and
was impressed with how succintly you stated the problem. I believe that
your statement in this paper is worth quoting here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1996 by the Creation Research Society, P.O. Box 376,
Chino Valley, AZ 86323.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[...snip...]
This contrast between Genesis 1 and the present day is raised as
a problem by non-Christians [...don't forget us Christians, too :-)
(SMS)]. After discussing the subject of limited variation with an
individual, the following objection was put to me.
"The biological development necessary for the transformation of a
world of entirely herbivorous animals into a world where
predation is everywhere and in which life cycles of so many
species are so intricately and inextricably bound requires
something more than a limited variation."
There is substance in this challenge. It is worthy of our
attention. The problem can be expressed concisely as follows: to
argue for created design seems to be in tension with the
vegetarian order portrayed in Genesis 1; to argue for such major
changes to have occurred naturally after the Fall (or the Flood)
seems to go beyond the limits of variation we customarily refer
to; to invoke miraculous intervention after the Fall (or the
Flood) seems to make God's judgment into a "re-creation" for the
predators-because they show themselves to be wonderfully designed
for their particular lifestyle.
[...snip...]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well stated. I gather from your article (correct me if I'm wrong)
that you would advocate something similar to John Morris' second
scenario in ICR BTG#100 (page d).
"The second option is that a great deal more potential for variation
was placed in the original genome. At first the animals were designed
to live a herbivores lifestyle, but adopted new habits in the more
harsh world following the curse. Today, following many generations of
variation, adaptation, and selection, animal groups have speciated so
much that extensive variation is impossible."
IMO, the biggest difference between this scenario and a typical
evolutionist scenerio is that this proposes speciation as a short term
_degenerative_ process (dispersive loss to the original static genome)
rather than a long term _generative_ process (mutation, genetic drift,
etc. additions to a changing genome). Does this mean that advocates of
this scenario concede that the evidence strongly supports the transmutation
of species (leaving all philosophical arguments aside)? Can we distinguish
one scenario from the other in the fossil record?
Actually, this hypothesis could be scientifically tested. If speciation
was a degenerative process, then I predict that older DNA would contain
a higher percentage of genetic variation than modern DNA. To test this
prediction, one could compare the amount of variation found in a population
of modern elephants with the amount of variation found in a population
of ice age mammoths. I would imagine that one could collect enough mammoth
DNA from those "frozen" beasts in the Siberian, Alaskan, or Canadian Artic
or even from some of the bones preserved in peat bogs from the midwest!
Or how about mummified Egyptians compared with modern Egyptians? Based on
this hypothesis, we would expect the amount of genetic variability in
populations to increase with an increase in the age between measured
populations.
>> Incidentally, the flip side of having no physical death before the fall
>> would be that there could be no reproduction! :-( ... in spite of the
>> command to "Be fruitful and multiply"! Any reproduction without the
>> check of death would eventually overwhelm the ecosystem of paradise. I
>> would also suggest that there might be "waste disposal" problem in
>> paradise without the benefit of decay!
>
>I do not think this view is shared by those of us who do think that
>physical death is part of the Edenic curse. The command is to "fill"
>the earth - not overfill it! There have been a series of articles by
>ecologically-minded YEC-biologists which have developed this thought
>and shown that populations of animals do have "stabilising" features
>(reduced birth rates, etc) which lead to self-regulation of numbers.
I'm aware that some populations of animals do have some sort of self-
regulation features that "stabilize" their population, but animal
mortality is also one of those "stabilizing" features. I fail to see
(blame my poor imagination) how reduced birth rates can stabilize a
population without the benefit of an occasional death. Given a long
enough period without physical death, even animals with reduced birth
rates will overwhelm their ecosystem. Eventually, that birth rate must
be reduced to zero thus nullifying the command to "be fruitful and
multiply"!
Steve Smith
[The opinions expressed here are my own
and should not be attributed to my employer]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: ////// Steven M. Smith Office: (303)236-1192 ::
:: |----OO U.S. Geological Survey Message: (303)236-1800 ::
:: C > Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC Fax: (303)236-3200 ::
:: \__~/ Denver, CO 80225 smsmith@helios.cr.usgs.gov ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::