Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcrs!lief
From: lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <14600021@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-May-85 19:41:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcrs.14600021
Posted: Wed May 15 19:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 07:20:49 EDT
References: <-98200@uwmacc.UUCP>
Lines: 35
Nf-ID: #R:uwmacc:-98200:hpfcrs:14600021:37777777600:1907
Nf-From: hpfcrs!lief    May 22 15:41:00 1985

>
>    Actually, according to what little I know of creation theory, the creation
>model would predict a sudden and abrupt appearence of all species which 
>currently exist, plus all species which have subsequently become extinct.
>This is contradictory to the evidence.  Any explanations, creationists?
>-- 
>Jeff Sonntag

     Any Creationist who really believes in the "sudden and abrubt appearance
of ALL SPECIES" is certainly going to have to reject the Flood theory in
Genesis 6-8, since there is absolutely no way every species of land animal and
bird could fit into the ark and be sustained for a whole year.  And in my
opinion, if one rejects Genesis 6-8, he doesn't have a case for Genesis 1.

     I've said it before, although not here.  Natural selection (and yes,
mutations) account for the vast variety of species which have occurred since
the Flood, (and on isolated islands).  Douglas Futuyma in SCIENCE ON TRIAL,
which I recently read, has many, many documented experiments demonstrating
that species can change radically within a few generations via natural
selection and mutations.  (Realize however that he is in no way supporting
creation.)  However, he fails to list even one example of a species changing
so radically that it suddenly belongs to another family.  In all his cases,
a horse was still a horse, a dog was still a dog, a fly was still a fly.
What he does, is constantly remind us that because of these experiments, we
can *infer* that the boundaries may be crossed.  Unfortunately, *inference*
ranks very low on my list of evidences.

     Let me remind some Creationists that if they really reject natural
selection, then again they will need to reject Genesis for another reason.
In Genesis a man named Jacob did some experiments with some cattle in order
to improve them -- in other words, variation of species.

Lief Sorensen
HP Fort Collins, CO
Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief