Re: Limits of Kinds (was Fall of evolved man)
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 07 Nov 1997 09:02:37 -0500 (EST)
At 05:58 AM 11/7/97 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
>At 10:50 PM 11/6/97 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>>The limits show up when you get to the extremes of the available genetic
>>capabailty of the kind. For example, in dog breeding -- say breeding
>>collies with longer and longer noses, there comes a point where longer
>>isn't better, because circulation problems etc. develop, and the dog has
>>trouble breathing. Beyond that, longer is not only not better, it is not
>>Dog variation is indeed astounding, but not unlimited. You cannot get a
>>dog the size of a fly, for example (for many reasons, structural and
>>otherwise), or the shape of a stingray, etc. A dog has dog structures for
>>dog purposes...operating within "dog parameters" (!)
>Lets try this in another fashion. Maybe there are limits not to the extent
>of change but to the rate of change. Maybe only so much change can occur in
>a short time. This would mean that creationists are mistaking a limit to
>change with the inability to change extremely rapidly.
>The data supporting this idea comes from paleontology. We don't have to go
>very far back into the past before we find NO living animals. Here are the
>species living in each of the past. Living forms were all different in the
>past. They changed.
>Recent 4631(including species which went extinct in historical times)
>The two living species found in the Miocene are the carnivore Callorhinus
>ursinus and the bat, Rhinolophus ferrum-equinum.
>So while we may bump into limits over a 1000 year period, it might not be
>there if given more time.
>The number of extinct species found in the various epochs of the Tertiary are:
>The average species is only found in one of these epochs. This implies that
>the fauna almost entirely turns over with the passing of each epoch. This
>is another difficulty for the global flood--explaining why different forms
>are deposited in the various layers, inspite of the fact that most ecozones are
>represented in each epoch.
>On the genus level the numbers of members of extant mammalian genera in the
>various geological epochs is:
>Triassic there are 4 genera--none with living members
>Jurassic 43 genera-none with living members
>Cretaceous 36 genera-none with living members
>Paleocene 213 genera-none with living members
>Eocene 569 genera- 3 with living members
>Oligocene 494 genera 11 with living members
>Miocene 749 genera 57 with living members
>Pliocene 762 genera 133 with living members
>Pleistocene 830 genera 417 with living members
>Doesn't this mean that life has changed? I see only two possibilities.
>Evolution or progressive creation that mimics the pattern of evolution
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
Is it fair to say that the analysis you are using is like taking a few
points, the experimental data, and connecting them according to a hypothesis
that you are assuming. Of course, this is done every day in experimental
science but there additional points can be provided by further experiments.
However, in studying the history of the earth, the number of experimental
points are very limited and thus the weakness of the conclusions one can
derive from such data. It seems that the points may not be connected at all.
Is that fair to say?