Kind "min" progressive creation

rycttb@sprynet.com
Sat, 21 Dec 1996 13:21:31 -0800

In response to David Lee Nidever's post about Hugh
Ross's view called "progressive creation." (If my
understanding is right.)
Although I see nothing unscriptural was his view I
wonder if it is actually what happened. Take the horse,
the donkey, and the mule for instance. Are horses,
and donkeys seperate species by the folk definition?
It seems they are different species by the folk
definition of species. However, it also seems to
me that they both descended from a common ancestor.
Pattle P. T. Pun who has a Ph.D. in biology from
State U in Buffalo NY is the author of "Evolution
Nature and Scripture in Conflict?" My understanding
from him is that we should be careful that we don't
say, "According to the Bible "min" or "kind" means
"species." Isaac Manly M.D. author of "God Made"
suggests that at times min might refer to phylum or
major groups like whales, turtles, lizards, etc.
I think at times perhaps "min" might refer to phylum
and at other times it might refer to genus or species.
I must admit I have to go by the observations of
others. I have no training or experience in this
area. However, the little I do know causes me to
reject macroevolution as well as the idea that
"min" must always refer to species.
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faq-speciation has
examples of life forms developing which can't produce
fertile offspring with their codescendants.
Macroevolution, as its usually taught, has some huge
problems. 1) The formation of the first cell. At my
web site I list 11 reasons why cells can't form by
chance. http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/rycttb
2) The formation of completely new and different
chromosomes. Notice the words "and different."
Merry Christmas.
Wayne McKellips