On Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:24:01 -0800 (PST) you wrote:
[...]
RW>"Micro" evolutionary processes result in small changes that usually
>disappear when the environemntal conditions driving the evolution change.
>Furthermore, evidence of "micro" evolution does not contradict a theory of
>intelligent design unless the designer is supposed to have created a world
>that did not meet the four criteria listed above; it is mathematically
>impossible for "micro" evolutionary evidence not to be there otherwise.
>Given these two considerations, the evidence of evolution occurring all
>around us is not strong, much less conclusive, evidence for the proposition
>that all life descended from a common ancestor by natural processes.
Obviously some micro-evolution occurs, eg. Peppered Moth, etc. I would
not even dignify this as even micro-evolution, but just variation.
But how much real hard evidence is there for naturalistic
micro-evolution above this interspecific variation level? In
re-reading Johnson's DOT today I found this quote by P.P. Grasse:
"The eminent French zoologist Pierre Grasse concluded that the results
of artificial selection provide powerful testimony against Darwin's
theory:
`In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection
(eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over
whole millennia, no new species are born. A comparative study of sera
hemoglobins, blood proteins, interfertility, etc., proves that the
strains remain within the same specific definition. This is not a
matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable
reality. The fact is that selection gives tangible form to and
gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing,
but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process.' " (Grasse
P.P., "Evolution of Living Organisms" 1977, pp124-25)
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press, Downers
Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p18).
The thing to note here is that Grasse was no redneck creationist with
a degree in hydraulic engineering. He was a former President of the
French Academy of Sciences. He was the author of a 28-volume work on
zoology and he believed that evolution (at least in the Darwinian
sense) was a myth.
My point is that if artificial selection over the millennia never
generated one genuine new species, and if all the irradiation of
Drosophila melanogaster has not produced even one new species of fruit
fly that was viable in the long term, then how do we know that our
Creator is not directly involved even in what we all too easily
concede as naturalistic micro-evolution?
Now I'm for it! :-)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------