Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

> > But experiments have consistently failed to support the hypothesis
> > that variations (including those produced by genetic mutation) and
> > selection (natural or artificial) can produce new species, organs and
> > body plans.
> Incorrect

That's an understatement. New species are being produced all the
time, both in the wild and in experiments. Novel body plans can be
found, e.g., in some of the lab mutants of fruit flies, including
changes in the number of limbs. It is true that experimental
genetics, etc. has not been looking for these things and so has not
reported much in that line. For purposes of traditional experimental
genetics, a fruit fly that won't breed with the parent stock is thrown
out. Molecular techniques developed in the past few decades provide
much more powerful tools to look at these issues. Nevertheless, since
evolution is a low priority for research funding, there's much less
detail worked out than one would like. A lot of it also takes too
long to be conducive to experiments, but evidence of paleontology,
molecular systematics, etc. address such long-term issues.

> > And what may have once looked like solid evidence for
> > universal common ancestry (fossils, embryos and molecular
> > comparisons) is now plagued by growing inconsistencies. It is
> > actually the Darwinists who brush aside these awkward facts who
> > "embrace scientific ignorance."
>
> The evidence for common ancestry is strong and what science has found
> is that 1) the origin of life may have involved a community 2)
> horizontal gene transfer may have muddled the tree. Despite all this,
> science has uncovered a strong common ancestry signal.

Also, evolution is expected to produce variations, convergence, etc.
Sure, the number of inconsistencies is growing because more data are
accumulating, but the proportion of inconsistencies is not growing.

> >Despite their differences, both of these
> > groups accept a central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings
> > were designed and created in the image of God.
> >
> > Darwinism denies this.
>
> Darwinism denies nothing of the kind.

It does when Darwinism is circularly defined as denying that humans
were created in the image of God. In actual antievolutionary usage,
"Darwinism" means "anything I don't like that I think I can blame on
evolution", not "holding beliefs credibly attributable to Charles
Darwin" nor "accepting that Darwin provided a good initial description
of the process of natural selection."

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.