I had written:
> >The basic creationist approach to this is to work with the fossils we
> >do have.
Glenn replied:
> Actually, I would disagree here. Young-earth creationists really don't work
> with the fossils. ... Where exactly do the creationists deal with
> fossils?
I was seeking to discuss these issues with the broadest meaning of
the word "creationist". There are YEC papers relating to fossils
(from CRSQ and ENTechJ) but I have no desire to restrict the debate
to YEC vs evolution. Fossils are discussed in most creationist
books: for example, see "The Creation Hypothesis", (IVP).
> 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.
>
> Which mechanisms? If you are referring to Whitcomb and Morris'
> hydrodynamic sorting, it was disproven in the 17th century long before
> Morris tried to revive that old idea. .....
Glenn, this is another debate. I set out not to get involved in this
- because whatever the proposed mechanism, the emphasis is on stasis.
By shifting the focus of the debate, this point is lost!
Needless to say, Whitcomb & Morris's "hydrodynamic sorting" qualifies
as a proposed mechanism (and I agree with you that it has not stood
up to critical scrutiny), but also the "creative intervention" of the
Progressive creationists qualifies as a proposed mechanism. But it
was not the purpose of my response to generate further discussion
about these proposals.
I had written:
> >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.
Glenn responded:
> What about the research program of the evolutionists? Doesn't that count?
Hmm. Since evolutionists have no concept of a "created kind", their
research programmes have little to contribute to this debate. The
structuralists have a concept of "basic types" - and they have
provided some useful ideas (useful to creationists, but not yet
useful to evolutionists).
Glenn:
> And if you go to levels below the Families, then the problem becomes worse
> because modern forms gradually appear as we climb higher in the geologic
> column and with genera and species, the oldest modern animals found in the
> fossil record is very late in the game.
Agreed - but this is predicted by Basic Type biologists!
I had written:
> >This is an argument you must put to those who propound this version
> >of Flood Geology. I agree they have a problem.
Glenn responded:
> Where do you place the end of the flood? Which rocks?
This is another debate - for another time!
I had written:
> > 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.
Glenn responded:
> Then if you think that all the information for future animals is already
> contained in present day animals, please demonstrate this. What will a
> house cat turn into in 1000 or 100,000 years? If the information is
> already there, we should be able to find it and decipher it. Or has all
> morphological change ceased?
How does one respond to this? Attempts to breed new characters into
plants using mutations have very few successes to report. Effort has
shifted to inserting genes (existing information) to get desirable
characteristics. It looks to me as though we are making a big
mistake with this as well. Traditional ways of breeding plants and
animals ALL use existing genetic information. There is no attempt
to add information, but to exploit what is already there (which is
recognised be be far more than was expressed).
I am not in the business of making predictions about future
generations. However, I will hazard a guess that we will get
increasing problems with genetic defects with time - in humans,
plants and animals.
We need a Christian perspective on all these things. We are stewards
of creation and we are responsible to God. The current influence of
man is towards monocultures - this is not healthy and I do not
believe it is good stewardship. The "most productive" is not the
best (and even then, it is only the most productive if we pour large
quantities of chemicals into the environment!). We need diversity
and balanced ecosystems - things our current scientific and
economic cultures are not giving us.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.