On Thu 27 Jul 1995 11:55 CT you wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>"It's not a question of PC never allowing the 'big changes'. After
130 years
>of trying Darwinists have nver produced a clear explanation of a mechanism
>that could produce these 'big changes.'<<
>
GM>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.
AFAIK, I never said that Hampe's experiment was "Irrelevant". I said
it
(a) is an argument for intelligent design; and (b) it only applied to
segmented forms.
It has not been demonstrated that "nonlinear dynamics" explains "major
morphological change." It might be a factor, but that could be as much
support for PC than NE. The real point is that it is not a *Darwinian*
mechanism. Not yet anyway! :-)
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Even some TE's must invoke God's direct action in some of these
'big
>changes', eg. the origin of life and man.<<
>
GM>So finally you admit that TE's are not "fully naturalistic".
Thanks. :-)
I have never said they are. But if you accept God's "direct action" in
some "big changes", why not in others.
GM>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 believe the Bible says a lot more. From cover to cover it is about a
God
whgo intervenes directly and supernaturally.
>I wrote:
GM>"If PC or YEC's want to destroy evolution with one experiment, then
the way >to do it is experimentally prove there is a limitation to
morphological change."
>
>Stephen replied.
SJ>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<<
>
GM>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.
Thanks. I do not deny there may be special cases. A group of cells can
join
up together, but presumably they still are single cells? I would
hardly see
this as establishing the general principle of no limit to biological
change.
Indeed if this is all you have, then you have your own answer.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------