At 02:01 PM 8/6/98 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote:
>David Tyler responding to Glenn Morton's post of Fri, 31 Jul 1998
>
>I had written:
>> >Fossils are discussed in most creationist
>> >books: for example, see "The Creation Hypothesis", (IVP).
>
>Glenn replied:
>> Well, I don't know about your copy of that work, but mine has only one
>> article by Wise which touches on fossils.... If this
>> is an example of creationism discussing fossil, it isn't very detailed.
>
>It was Kurt Wise's essay I was thinking of. I was just responding
>to the thought that creationists don't really address the fossil
>evidence - but if an essay by a PhD palaeontologist does not go some
>way to meeting this request, I do not know what will. Creationists
>will concur with you that much more work needs to be done.
It would suffice IF it was detailed. How can you say that an article that
only mentions a few genera is a paleontological article. Kurt doesn't
discuss any morphological data or have any skeletal comparisons. Why?
>
>Glenn:
>> >> And if you go to levels below the Families, then the problem becomes
worse
>> >> because modern forms gradually appear as we climb higher in the geologic
>> >> column and with genera and species, the oldest modern animals found
in the
>> >> fossil record is very late in the game.
>My response:
>> >Agreed - but this is predicted by Basic Type biologists!
>Glenn:
>> Exactly how? I have tried but failed to understand what they are saying.
>> Why should the modern forms come late in the game within their view?
>
>I think you are trying to trying to see everything "creationist"
>from a perspective of the Whitcomb and Morris Flood model.
>Creationism is broader than this!
>
>However, even if you go back to Frank Marsh's "Variation and fixity
>in living things", you will find the basic concept of radiation from
>an ancestral population. Those creationists who associate the
>geological column with sequential events, a historical record, will
>be comfortable with this thought: the earlier a species comes in
>the sequence, the more likely it is to be different from modern
>forms. This is by no means a rule, however, and contemporary "living
>fossils" are witness to that.
So, how do you have this difference from modern forms when the animals that
gave rise to the modern forms were on the ark and were not outside the ark
evolving and being buried by the flood and thus fossilized? After the flood
there wasn't a lot of time or a lot of fossilization (according to most
creationists). Because of this all the evolution which you suggest took
place, must be post flood. And because the sediment containing a fossil
can't be earlier than the fossil, the sediments also must be post flood.
But if the sediments which contain the fossils are due to post-flood time
periods, then the sediments couldn't be deposited rapidly and there must be
a long, long time for them to be deposited. So, exactly what is different
in your scenario from modern geology?
>
>> I guess I didn't explain myself well enough. If antievolutionists believe
>> that the information for all the kinds were in the animals on the ark,
>> then the post flood world represents an unfolding or unrolling of the
>> pre-existing information.
>
>Taking "creationists" or "anti-evolutionists" in its broadest sense,
>this is not the case. A significant number of creationists believe
>in a local Flood. However, with the qualification that we are
>talking about air-breathing animals, and a global flood, the point
>you make is correct.
So if you agree that the evolution seen in the fossil record is post flood,
then the sediments couldn't be rapidly deposited and there must be a long
history for the world.
>
>> So the questions are: 1. Has
>> this unfolding process ended? 2. How do we know it is ended? 3. If it
>> hasn't ended then how can we utilize the DNA to determine the future course
>> of the unfolding? 4. Can you show that there is an extra amount of
>> information in living forms, information not required to produce the
>> current carrier of that information? 5. What is the role of mutation in
>> this process?
>
>1. No, we have no reason to think the unfolding process has ended.
>2. When speciation is no longer with us, we can infer we are
>approaching the limits of these radiations.
For the record, speciation continues today. and appears to be about the
same rate as in the past.
>3. I do not know.
If you don't know how to predict the future course, then you have a
hypothesis that makes not predictions and thus can't be verified.
>4. Surely it is common knowledge that phenotypes are not an
>accurate indication of what's in the genotypes. Breeders of plants
>and animals work with this concept every day.
Blue eyes is an accurate indication that I have a gene for blue-eyes. If
phenotype weren't a predictor of the genotype, then I might have the
genetics for brown eyes.
>5. Mutation is IMO of little importance.
So what is of great importance? How does your unfolding occur? What is the
mechanism?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm