I had written:
> >Fossils are discussed in most creationist
> >books: for example, see "The Creation Hypothesis", (IVP).
Glenn replied:
> Well, I don't know about your copy of that work, but mine has only one
> article by Wise which touches on fossils.... If this
> is an example of creationism discussing fossil, it isn't very detailed.
It was Kurt Wise's essay I was thinking of. I was just responding
to the thought that creationists don't really address the fossil
evidence - but if an essay by a PhD palaeontologist does not go some
way to meeting this request, I do not know what will. Creationists
will concur with you that much more work needs to be done.
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.
My response:
> >Agreed - but this is predicted by Basic Type biologists!
Glenn:
> Exactly how? I have tried but failed to understand what they are saying.
> Why should the modern forms come late in the game within their view?
I think you are trying to trying to see everything "creationist"
from a perspective of the Whitcomb and Morris Flood model.
Creationism is broader than this!
However, even if you go back to Frank Marsh's "Variation and fixity
in living things", you will find the basic concept of radiation from
an ancestral population. Those creationists who associate the
geological column with sequential events, a historical record, will
be comfortable with this thought: the earlier a species comes in
the sequence, the more likely it is to be different from modern
forms. This is by no means a rule, however, and contemporary "living
fossils" are witness to that.
> I guess I didn't explain myself well enough. If antievolutionists believe
> that the information for all the kinds were in the animals on the ark,
> then the post flood world represents an unfolding or unrolling of the
> pre-existing information.
Taking "creationists" or "anti-evolutionists" in its broadest sense,
this is not the case. A significant number of creationists believe
in a local Flood. However, with the qualification that we are
talking about air-breathing animals, and a global flood, the point
you make is correct.
> So the questions are: 1. Has
> this unfolding process ended? 2. How do we know it is ended? 3. If it
> hasn't ended then how can we utilize the DNA to determine the future course
> of the unfolding? 4. Can you show that there is an extra amount of
> information in living forms, information not required to produce the
> current carrier of that information? 5. What is the role of mutation in
> this process?
1. No, we have no reason to think the unfolding process has ended.
2. When speciation is no longer with us, we can infer we are
approaching the limits of these radiations.
3. I do not know.
4. Surely it is common knowledge that phenotypes are not an
accurate indication of what's in the genotypes. Breeders of plants
and animals work with this concept every day.
5. Mutation is IMO of little importance.
Apologies for the brevity,
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.