From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In the case of evolution, there is no direct evidence that it *causes* > speciation. However, there are also no other viable suspects.
I've been looking at Answers in Genesis and some other creationist sites from time to time and the current trend seems to be to accept micro evolution - the development of different "types" from a source, such as the Galapagos Finches, but to totally reject the idea of macro-evolution - the development of new species. One of the main problems I have is that the many of these sites outline quite clearly the steps involved in evolution, often getting almost to the point where the action of evolution is pretty conclusively shown, but then reject them all because they cannot fit into the 7-day creation. It really, really boils down to how important it is to you that Genesis is fact and not metaphor. And therein ends the chance of being convinced otherwise. The pool of arguments against evolutionary theory are getting smaller and smaller. In fact, you can check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp for a list of arguments that Answers in Genesis itself says creationists should NOT use against evolution. Typically, an awful lot of these arguments are alive and well at other creationist sites (especially the so called Paluxy River dinosaur/human tracks). Bacterial strains resistant to anti-biotics would have to be a pretty conclusive argument FOR evolution being observed. However, many of the creationist sites claim that it is not evolution at all as nothing NEW was created, it was simply selection of existing sub-populations. To which the answer is, of course, EXACTLY, that is what evolution is all about, as a separate group finds itself uniquely better fitted for its environment and so, over time, changes from its predecessors that live in a different environment. Information theory seems to be the current killer argument against evolution, thrown in with Newton's Second Law: that evolution does not exist because it is impossible for NEW information to be created in DNA except by a creator. It seems that the possibility of genetic change by degradation of existing DNA information has been conceded. The propensity of DNA to recombine in ways in which new information is added (ie, a whole new length of DNA code gets added by mistake and subsequently happens to be of benefit) doesn't seem to rate as an argument. And for the very last (cheeky) word about creation, check out http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_fair_dinkum_aussie_creation.htm Cheers, Brett
