> I would argue that 'kind' can not be equivalent with the biological genus,
> or family either. There are no fossil examples of living genus's prior to
> the....
> and there are no fossils members of any modern mammalian family prior to
> the upper Cretaceous!
The basic creationist approach to this is to work with the fossils we
do have. Various mechanisms are proposed to explain the lack of,
say, mammals before the Jurassic. The creationist arguments
generally draw attention to evidences of stasis - implying continuity
and real possibility of identifying genetically related groups.
> All animals were different in the lower, older
> rocks. If you make 'kind' equivalent to the 'order' then you are allowing
> so much evolution (an ability to evolve the pangolian, the anteater, the
> cat, the cow etc) from a single pair of organisms. It makes a mockery of
> 'kind'.
If we are to say anything substantial on this, there must be a
research programme. The german group have documented 13 Basic Types
- which are either at the Family or sub-Family level. I see no value
in talking about 'orders' in the light of this research evidence.
> What you will see below is that the modern genera and families are
> not found in the earliest flood deposited rocks. And you will see that the
> entirety of living beings has changed from pre-flood to post flood
> (especially if the end of the flood is where Austin puts it at the end of
> the Cretaceous.
This is an argument you must put to those who propound this version
of Flood Geology. I agree they have a problem.
> This means that young-earth creationists, like Austin,
> believe that all this change took place in about 6000 years. This further
> requires that young earthers are really hyper-evolutionists. They believe
> in morphological change at a more rapid pace than any evolutionist would
> ever suggest.
This is not the case! The creationist model does allow for rapid
change - because the biologic information is already present in the
ancestral animals. The information does not have to be "created" by
the (natural) selection of mutations. This variation is not
evolutionary, but creationary! And it will usually result in a loss
to the gene pool - a testable proposition.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.