Re: Limits of Kinds - Ginkgo

Arthur V. Chadwick (
Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:54:08 -0800

At 07:32 PM 11/17/97 -0600, Glenn wrote:
>I agree that the evolutionists invented the term. But they use it in an
>entirely different way than the creationists. Creationists try to use it to
>say that there has been no change, but that is not what the evolutionists
>mean. They mean that the group (genus, family etc) has existed from a long
>time ago.

I don't know any informed creationists ("YEC" or otherwise) who believe
there has been no change. This is a straw man argument as Gould himself
I maintain that creationists also mean that the group (genus, family, etc)
has remained static for a long time (but much less time than the
evolutionist asserts).

>Maybe the issue should be re-directed. How do you quantify how much
>morphological change has occurred. To use the crabs on my web page as
>evidence of a living fossil is clearly wrong.

Not necessarily. If that is the extent of change in 200 million years,
that is remarkable. They are clearly similar. The forms from the Permian
and Silurian shown on page 563 of Shrock & Twenhofel (respectively
Paleolimulus and Neolimulus -- the extant genus is Limulus) even more
clearly represent remarkable stasis, as the choice of the genus names
indicates, as well as the obvious similarity of the forms.