Re: The Genesis Factor
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Tue, 01 Jun 1999 07:17:23 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Taggart <James_Taggart@multilink.com>
> To: Jeffrey Lee <jalee@cts.com>
> Cc: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: The Genesis Factor
>
> >
> >
> >Won't help. They'll slice you up with Occam's razor. Whatever
> transitionals
> >you supply will be met with, "Ah, but where is the transition between the
> >transitionals?" Given that we have discovered but a small percentage of
> all the
> >creatures that ever existed, and that the transitionals are just that,
> >"transitionals," and therefore never greatly represented in the animal
> >population, the fortunate thing is that we find any of 'em. But we will
> never
> >find enough to satisfy the antievolutionaries.
> >
> >"Jeffrey Lee" <jalee@cts.com> on 05/31/99 05:09:36 PM
> >
> >To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> >cc: (bcc: James Taggart/Multilink)
> >Subject: Re: The Genesis Factor
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Creation of new species and genera has been
> >> observed to happen, and there are transitional fossils between different
> >> classes of organisms (possibly between phyla, depending on how narrowly
> or
> >> broadly you define phyla)
> >>
> >> David C.
> >>
***********************************************************
The issue is not whether some form of change produces a population of
non-breeders and this is an artificial barrier and is only in our minds
as a definned division. The issue is as to whether random mutations
coupled with survival of the fittest can be inventive. By inventive I
don't mean a longer leg for better speed away from predators I mean
invention of wholesale new parts. Such as the transition of lungs and
hearts and other irreducibly complex and novel biological systems. From
this view the debate over transitionals is immaterial and a straw man.
Bert Massie
> >