Re: [asa] Yet again i seek help (Iain s???)

> Don't mean to rain on your parade, but can you do something for me
> that evolutionists have so far been unable to do -- tell me how
> blood clotting came about through macro-evolution. Micro-evolution
> has never, and this is agreed to be all, led to a new kind of
> animal. That is, no one has ever seen a cat turn into another kind
> of animal that is new to this planet.

What do they mean by "microevolution" versus "macroevolution"?

New species are produced all the time by ordinary biological
processes, including hybridization and the accumulation of mutations.
Microevolution does indeed produce new kinds of animals, and there are
plenty of examples-this is a popular false claim of antievolutionism,
though many people aren't too aware of it (although plants probably
provide more examples).

> Also, mutations do not lead to good results. I've heard all the
> arguments about things like sickle cell anemia being an example of
> a beneficial mutation because malaria carrying skeeters won't bite
> those with the sickle cell. Not sure how that is a benefit to the
> sick person since they are going to die from the sickle cell.

This is rather garbled. 0 copies of sickle-cell- vulnerable to
malaria; 1 copy-resistant to malaria (still gets bit); 2 copies-fatal.
 Mutations can lead to benefits, but the definition of beneficial or
harmful is almost entirely dependant on the context. Some bacteria
have a mutation enabling them to eat nylon. Good for the bacteria,
cleans up the environment (assuming that the breakdown products don't
cause problems), but possibly a negative for people if they get into
your clothes, etc. Mutations are basic to our immune system keeping
up with pathogens-that's how we make antibodies, for example.

> 1. How did the first clotting start given random chance? BTW, God
> never once uses or talks about using chance on His part.

Second part is wrong. God directs the outcome of casting lots. By
implication, the unaimed arrow that killed Ahab is attributed to God's
judgement.

The first part neglects the fact that this would have its origins in a
much simpler system. Look at what systems are present in echinoderms,
tunicates, lancelets, lampreys, sharks, bony fish, amphibians,
reptiles, and other mammals, and you should get some ideas about how
things originated. Note also that hemophiliacs do not automatically
die before reproducing-a fully functional system is not essential to
survival.

> But, here is my major issue with evolution: My God, the God that I
> find in the pages of the Bible does not need to use pain, suffering
> and death to create the universe, this planet, and all life on it.

This gets into the basic question of "natural evil", which has been
discussed a lot already (is animal suffering truly an "evil"? might
our sin and/or Satan's affect the physical world before the fall of
man? etc.), but I would also note that God is at work in and able to
use the pain, suffering, and death in human history for His own
purpose, despite much of it also having sinful aspects.

> So, variation within species, or speciation, no Creationist will
> ever argue against that, not if they know anything about this
> topic.

Wells attacks the variation within peppered moths.

> Where we disagree is on macro-evolution. There is not one
> iota of evidence to support this position.

Not one iota but rather lots and lots. We have the numerous
transitions in the fossil record, the biochemical patterns of
similarity, the many new species formed in the lab and in the wild
(the easiest way being to have a hybrid that cannot reproduce with
either parent but can reproduce either asexually or breeding with
other hybrids-very common in plants but widespread in animals, too),
etc.

-- 
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.