On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:26:18 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

The question is to why there are gaps. Dr. Gish is of the opinion that we
have gaps since the transitional animals never existed. Can you prove that
they did exist?

Can you *prove* that Gish exists? Can you *prove* that Pluto orbits
the Sun? Can you *prove* that the Earth has a hot metallic core? All
you seem able to "prove" (that is, demonstrate) is that you can't
learn a thing. So you keep harping on "prove" as though that means
anything in science.

As for gaps, and for those who pay attention, science has a very
useful basic rule*, the way the world works is pretty constant. That
is, the fundamental rules that apply here and now applied there and
then. In terms of biology science makes the rather obvious inference
that organisms long ago reproduced rather than suddenly popping into
existence. We see speciation via descent with modification occur
today, it is entirely reasonable to figure it happened in the past as
well. We can use fossil evidence, as well as current morphology (here
is a test Jason, do you know what "morphology" means) and genetics and
development, to figure out details of actual course of this descent
with modification. The "gaps" do present something worth studying and
they can help us understand the *pattern* of speciation. But to say
that we don't have a fossil so some organism just popped into
existence is silly. Asserting "god did it" does not make it any
sillier.


*You apply this same rule every morning. You figure that food will
stop hunger, that pissing will get rid of that uncomfortable feeling
in your groin, and that your car keys have not transformed themselves
into socks. If you can't find your keys, but you do see socks very few
of us would assert that god made the keys turn into socks.

In article <sjUuf.72835$a15.9455@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <g8Duf.58115$Cj5.24791@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <aaBuf.69460$7p5.19809@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <9xAuf.30479$zt1.15617@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

No--I did NOT state that my college biology professor told us that every
animal was fossilized. However, if there were as many transitional forms
as is required if evolution is a valid theory--there should be NO

gaps in

the fossil record in regard to transitional forms.

I am really at a loss as to why you would think this

I did not develop this idea on my own. Dr. Duane Gish discussed the
reasons that he came to this conclusion in his book which is mentioned
above.
Dr. Gish believes the reason that there are gaps in the fossil record is
because transitional forms never exited and that's the reason for the gaps
in the fossil evidence. I realize that the evolutionists claim that some
of the fossils reveal transitional forms. Each of those fossils would have
to be examined on a
case by case basis. It's been several years since I read Dr. Gish's

book and

I don't recall whether or not he discussed those fossils. You would have
to read Dr. Gish's book if you want an anwer to your question.

That didn't answer my question. Why would you assume all the
transitional animals would have been fossilised?

I did not assume that all of the transitional animals would have been
fossilized. You appear to be trying to put words in my mouth.

Then why say there would be no gaps?

The question is to why there are gaps. Dr. Gish is of the opinion that we
have gaps since the transitional animals never existed. Can you prove that
they did exist?

Hello,
Thanks for your post. My impression of Gould's quote is different than
your impression of same quote. Based upon what I learned about evolution
theory in college, transitional forms played an important role in relation
to all of different species of animals and plants now in the world. If so
many transitional forms were once in the world--there should be NO gaps in
the fossil record related to transitional forms.

Dr. Duane Gish wrote a book entitled,
"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No". The main reason that the book has
that title is because "the lack of transitional fossils represents real
gaps".

In article <j0lgr1t7ueud3r14isehfrci2u95f7asgm@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:04:13 -0800,

In article <UPWtf.21417$mn1.6070@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Ash,
Did Gould believe the following:
the lack of transitional fossils represents real gaps Feel free to
do some research before you answer this question.

On a related issue, do other scientists agree with Gould or was he
totally out of the mainstream? Feel free to do some research before
you answer the question.

Scientists agree with Gould.

Other posters--please note that Ash failed to answer my question.

Other posters please note that it is the epitome of hypocrisy for Jason
to take anyone else to task for failing to answer a question.

I should note that I agree with Gould. The advocates of creation
science would also agree that the lack of transitional fossils
represents REAL gaps.

Bear in mind that Gould never believed these gaps disproved
macroevolution. He merely believed, correctly, that this was an area
where more research was needed.

Did Gould mention the term macroevolution?

In article <j0lgr1t7ueud3r14isehfrci2u95f7asgm@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:04:13 -0800,

In article <UPWtf.21417$mn1.6070@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Ash,
Did Gould believe the following:
the lack of transitional fossils represents real gaps
Feel free to do some research before you answer this question.

On a related issue, do other scientists agree with Gould or was he
totally out of the mainstream? Feel free to do some research before you
answer the question.

Scientists agree with Gould.

Other posters--please note that Ash failed to answer my question.

Other posters please note that it is the epitome of hypocrisy for
Jason to take anyone else to task for failing to answer a question.

I should note that I agree with Gould.
The advocates of creation science would also agree that the
lack of transitional fossils represents REAL gaps.

Bear in mind that Gould never believed these gaps disproved
macroevolution. He merely believed, correctly, that this was an area
where more research was needed.

Did Gould mention the term macroevolution?

In article <8ANtf.63968$a15.60166@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <bo1er1tgud8t3r6hpt0nh92o3iss2l4id7@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:37:58 -0800,

In article <rcydnc4ePt2eXiveRVn-qA@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <jason-3112050923380001@pm4-broad-8.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,

In article <y-6dnSZQS9O4myvenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <jason-3012051621100001@pm4-broad-41.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists
gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled
"Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that
underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp.
883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether
the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to
explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given
as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each
basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while
variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.

The above article was written by Dr. John Morris (President of ICR).

You mean the above distortions and lies were written by Morris. I

looked

up the article. Morris deceptively snips the quote and elides an
important part. Here's the actual quote:

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the
mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the
phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the
positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given
as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether

microevolution

is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be
seen as a continuum with a notable overlap."

http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

Lewin was *NOT* saying the conference discarded macroevolution. Not in
the least. That is a deliberate deception on the part of Morris.

At least one person at the conference says Lewin misquoted him to the
point of making him say something opposite of what he thinks:

"'I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the
quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at
various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at
least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I
don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate!

In any

case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small
(genetic) changes do accumulate.'

"In other words, Dr Ayala directly denies having said the words
attributed to him by Lewin, and in fact expresses his completely
opposite opinion."

(ibid.)

Finally, the conference had not a single thing to do with repudiating
"macroevolution." It had to do with the flap over "punctuated
equilibrium" which was never a new idea and never conflicted with
gradualism. The creationists don't even understand what was being
debated.

Is Morris always this dishonest?

I don't think that he was being dishonest. As you well know, it's

possible

for various people to listen to the same speech and come to different
conclusions about what the speech maker said during the speech. Perhaps
Dr. Morris should have interviewed Dr. Ayala prior to writing the

article.

You're hopeless.

Morris cut the quote dishonestly to make it appear as if

"macro-evolution"

was being denied when, in fact, it was *not.

The PE crowd was *never* saying "macro-evolution" did not occur. Their
position was that gradualism was insufficient to *explain it.

Don't try to tell me people like Gould were denying evolution.

Gould was a

strong supporter of evolutionary theory and thought creationists were
idiots.

Morris is *misleading people. Period.

Someone in this newsgroup referred me to a site at the talkorigins.org
website. One of the statements that Gould made was related to his
disagreement with some aspects of evolution theory. Gould was upset that
creationists had taken his statement out of context. He made it clear that
he was an evolutionist. He never denied evolution and I don't ever recall
stating in any post that Gould was denying evolution.

If missing the point ever becomes an Olympic event, you'll be a
shoo-in for the gold. The point is not whether or not Gould ever
denied evolution. We know he didn't. The freaking *point* is that
Morris, Gish et.al. are LIARS! They don't do science, and they
wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit their noses off.
That's a fact. Deal with it.

I disagree.
Have a Happy New Year,
Jason

but not based on the facts

Ash,
Did Gould believe the following:
the lack of transitional fossils represents real gaps

Did Gould believe the following:
the lack of transitional fossils represents real gaps

In article <bo1er1tgud8t3r6hpt0nh92o3iss2l4id7@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:37:58 -0800,

In article <rcydnc4ePt2eXiveRVn-qA@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <jason-3112050923380001@pm4-broad-8.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,

In article <y-6dnSZQS9O4myvenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <jason-3012051621100001@pm4-broad-41.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists
gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled
"Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that
underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp.
883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether
the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to
explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given
as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each
basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while
variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.

The above article was written by Dr. John Morris (President of ICR).

You mean the above distortions and lies were written by Morris. I looked
up the article. Morris deceptively snips the quote and elides an
important part. Here's the actual quote:

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the
mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the
phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the
positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given
as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution
is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be
seen as a continuum with a notable overlap."

http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

Lewin was *NOT* saying the conference discarded macroevolution. Not in
the least. That is a deliberate deception on the part of Morris.

At least one person at the conference says Lewin misquoted him to the
point of making him say something opposite of what he thinks:

"'I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the
quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at
various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at
least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I
don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any
case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small
(genetic) changes do accumulate.'

"In other words, Dr Ayala directly denies having said the words
attributed to him by Lewin, and in fact expresses his completely
opposite opinion."

(ibid.)

Finally, the conference had not a single thing to do with repudiating
"macroevolution." It had to do with the flap over "punctuated
equilibrium" which was never a new idea and never conflicted with
gradualism. The creationists don't even understand what was being
debated.

Is Morris always this dishonest?

I don't think that he was being dishonest. As you well know, it's

possible

for various people to listen to the same speech and come to different
conclusions about what the speech maker said during the speech. Perhaps
Dr. Morris should have interviewed Dr. Ayala prior to writing the

article.

You're hopeless.

Morris cut the quote dishonestly to make it appear as if "macro-evolution"
was being denied when, in fact, it was *not.

The PE crowd was *never* saying "macro-evolution" did not occur. Their
position was that gradualism was insufficient to *explain it.

Don't try to tell me people like Gould were denying evolution. Gould was a
strong supporter of evolutionary theory and thought creationists were
idiots.

Morris is *misleading people. Period.

Someone in this newsgroup referred me to a site at the talkorigins.org
website. One of the statements that Gould made was related to his
disagreement with some aspects of evolution theory. Gould was upset that
creationists had taken his statement out of context. He made it clear that
he was an evolutionist. He never denied evolution and I don't ever recall
stating in any post that Gould was denying evolution.

If missing the point ever becomes an Olympic event, you'll be a
shoo-in for the gold. The point is not whether or not Gould ever
denied evolution. We know he didn't. The freaking *point* is that
Morris, Gish et.al. are LIARS! They don't do science, and they
wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit their noses off.
That's a fact. Deal with it.

I disagree.

Have a Happy New Year,

In article <rcydnc4ePt2eXiveRVn-qA@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <jason-3112050923380001@pm4-broad-8.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

In article <y-6dnSZQS9O4myvenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <jason-3012051621100001@pm4-broad-41.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists
gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled
"Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that
underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp.
883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether
the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to
explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given
as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each
basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while
variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.

The above article was written by Dr. John Morris (President of ICR).

You mean the above distortions and lies were written by Morris. I looked
up the article. Morris deceptively snips the quote and elides an
important part. Here's the actual quote:

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the
mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the
phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the
positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given
as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution
is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be
seen as a continuum with a notable overlap."

http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

Lewin was *NOT* saying the conference discarded macroevolution. Not in
the least. That is a deliberate deception on the part of Morris.

At least one person at the conference says Lewin misquoted him to the
point of making him say something opposite of what he thinks:

"'I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the
quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at
various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at
least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I
don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any
case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small
(genetic) changes do accumulate.'

"In other words, Dr Ayala directly denies having said the words
attributed to him by Lewin, and in fact expresses his completely
opposite opinion."

(ibid.)

Finally, the conference had not a single thing to do with repudiating
"macroevolution." It had to do with the flap over "punctuated
equilibrium" which was never a new idea and never conflicted with
gradualism. The creationists don't even understand what was being
debated.

Is Morris always this dishonest?

I don't think that he was being dishonest. As you well know, it's possible
for various people to listen to the same speech and come to different
conclusions about what the speech maker said during the speech. Perhaps
Dr. Morris should have interviewed Dr. Ayala prior to writing the article.

You're hopeless.

Morris cut the quote dishonestly to make it appear as if "macro-evolution"
was being denied when, in fact, it was *not.

The PE crowd was *never* saying "macro-evolution" did not occur. Their
position was that gradualism was insufficient to *explain it.

Don't try to tell me people like Gould were denying evolution. Gould was a
strong supporter of evolutionary theory and thought creationists were
idiots.

Morris is *misleading people. Period.

Someone in this newsgroup referred me to a site at the talkorigins.org
website. One of the statements that Gould made was related to his
disagreement with some aspects of evolution theory. Gould was upset that
creationists had taken his statement out of context. He made it clear that
he was an evolutionist. He never denied evolution and I don't ever recall
stating in any post that Gould was denying evolution.

In article <y-6dnSZQS9O4myvenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <jason-3012051621100001@pm4-broad-41.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered
at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution."
Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of
species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of
the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each
basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while
variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.

The above article was written by Dr. John Morris (President of ICR).

You mean the above distortions and lies were written by Morris. I looked
up the article. Morris deceptively snips the quote and elides an important
part. Here's the actual quote:

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether
the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain
the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the
positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as
a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is
totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen
as a continuum with a notable overlap."

http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

Lewin was *NOT* saying the conference discarded macroevolution. Not in the
least. That is a deliberate deception on the part of Morris.

At least one person at the conference says Lewin misquoted him to the
point of making him say something opposite of what he thinks:

"'I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the
quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at
various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least
as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know
what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case,
virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small
(genetic) changes do accumulate.'

"In other words, Dr Ayala directly denies having said the words attributed
to him by Lewin, and in fact expresses his completely opposite opinion."

(ibid.)

Finally, the conference had not a single thing to do with repudiating
"macroevolution." It had to do with the flap over "punctuated equilibrium"
which was never a new idea and never conflicted with gradualism. The
creationists don't even understand what was being debated.

Is Morris always this dishonest?

I don't think that he was being dishonest.

As you well know, it's possible
for various people to listen to the same speech and come to different
conclusions about what the speech maker said during the speech. Perhaps
Dr. Morris should have interviewed Dr. Ayala prior to writing the article.

In <jason-3012051621100001@pm4-broad-41.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered
at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution."
Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of
species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of
the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each
basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while
variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.

The above article was written by Dr. John Morris (President of ICR).

You mean the above distortions and lies were written by Morris. I looked
up the article. Morris deceptively snips the quote and elides an important
part. Here's the actual quote:

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether
the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain
the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the
positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as
a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is
totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen
as a continuum with a notable overlap."

http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

Lewin was *NOT* saying the conference discarded macroevolution. Not in the
least. That is a deliberate deception on the part of Morris.

At least one person at the conference says Lewin misquoted him to the
point of making him say something opposite of what he thinks:

"'I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the
quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at
various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least
as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know
what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case,
virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small
(genetic) changes do accumulate.'

"In other words, Dr Ayala directly denies having said the words attributed
to him by Lewin, and in fact expresses his completely opposite opinion."

(ibid.)

Finally, the conference had not a single thing to do with repudiating
"macroevolution." It had to do with the flap over "punctuated equilibrium"
which was never a new idea and never conflicted with gradualism. The
creationists don't even understand what was being debated.

Is Morris always this dishonest?

The above article was written by Dr. John Morris (President of ICR).

In article <9bitf.15596$bd.3761@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:

Please give me a quantifiable definition that distinguishes between macro
and micro-evolution.

There is much misinformation about these two words, and yet, understanding
them is perhaps the crucial prerequisite for understanding the
creation/evolution issue.

Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin
of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different,
ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an
invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The
evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens
within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the
ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the
changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be
accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present
variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or
accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce
a new breed of dog.

The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing
genetic material within the group.

As Gregor Mendel observed with his
breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to
genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What
causes macroevolutionary change?

Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to
macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed.

The one
most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced
resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA
ever produce big-scale change?

Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes
(which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes
(which are never observed).

This philosophical leap of faith lies at the
eve of evolution thinking.

A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of
microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak
shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite
example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of
moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when
soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and
germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change
was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes
can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered
at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution."
Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of
species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of
the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each
basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while
variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.

The above article was written by Dr. John Morris (President of ICR).

The advocates of creation science are of the opinion that micro-evolution
is a fact since it has been proved.
Those same advocates don't believe that macro-evolution is a fact since it
has not been proved.

In article <1Xetf.40496$BZ5.26014@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, "Mike
Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Do you believe the state government of federal government should
decide whether or not a Christian college is allowed to operate? In
this case, an official from the state government tried his best to
close down the ICR college. The official caused the college to lose
its accreditation. ICR had to find another private agency to accredit
them. They succeeded. Jason

You don't need to be accredited to run a school. Loosing accreditation,
while it might require a final signature of a single "