I have mentioned the ease of changing drumsticks to lizard legs, but you
dismiss it as irrelevant. Today Brian Harper points you to Brian Goodwin's
book How the Leopard Changed his Spots_ as indicating some evolutionists are
regarding the concept that there are two mechanisms at work to change
morphology - one for minor change (e.g., European/Oriental/African
differentiation) and another basic to nonlinear dynamics to explain major
morphological change.
Stephen wrote:
>>Even some TE's must invoke God's direct action in some of these 'big
changes', eg. the origin of life and man.<<
So finally you admit that TE's are not "fully naturalistic". Thanks. :-)
I would think you would probably find that most TE's involve God with the
oriign of man for theological reasons (i.e. the Bible says so) The origin of
life is still an open scientific question.
I wrote:
"If PC or YEC's want to destroy evolution with one experiment, then the way to
do it is experimentally prove theere is a limitation to morphological change."
Stephen replied.
>> I can hardly believe you wrote this, Glenn! :-) The 100% result of *all*
such experiments has been that there *are* definite limits to biological
change and therefore evolution (ie. macro-evoluton) *has* been destroyed (by
your definition)!
If you disagree with this, please post *one example of an experiment that
produced a change above the species level<<
I will cite a paper tonight in which a group of single cell creatures who were
not colonial, suddenly became colonial due to selection pressure. By the
rules govening the classification of single cell animals, they classified it
as a new family. As to genus differences, there are numerous examples of
plant polyploidy producing new genus's (or genii? Just what is the plural
form of genus? I hope it isn't genie) Among these are Corn, triticale, some
types of fireweed, etc.
I will post references tonight.Oh, the single cell to colonial form was perfo
rmed by a guy named Boraas if anyone can look him up more quickly.
glenn