> Fine, creationary "theory" also accepts natural selection and variation. But what else does
> a creationary "theory" have to offer ?
The rich field of Basic Type biology.
I had written:
> Kettlewell announced his findings to the world with a fanfare: here
> is "Darwin's missing evidence". The experiments have remained as
> the ONLY good example of known forces of natural selection affecting
> the genetic makeup of a breeding population.
> I guess this means that you are not aware of "Beak of the Finch" then ? Your statement
> should perhaps read "ONLY good example _known to you_" ?
The "Beak of the Finch" was in my thoughts as I wrote the above
comment. Here is yet another example of variation in nature, but
what do we really know about mechanisms? Is there any evidence that
genetic changes were occuring in these finches? We know that there
were environmental changes, but were the forces of natural
selection? I have only read of inferences.
> Yes, there are over a hundred other examples of "natural selection" -
> but in no case do we have the same clear link between identifiable
> selection forces and the genetic make-up of organisms. That is why
> Steve Jones described the Peppered Moth story as "Evolution's best
> I would not say that this is the case. There are far better examples
> at present.
I would be interested to hear the justification for this statement.
If the Galapagos finches is a "far better" example, I'll stick with
my argument above.
David J. Tyler.