I’m no fan of Ankerberg, however, if you read his letter, which ICR is complaining about, he explicitly denies evolution of any kind.
As a matter of fact, one of the proofs of an old Earth creation he posits, is that given the literal millions of species/kinds on the earth today, unless there was a hyper-evolution AFTER the great Flood, the number of pairs (30,000 ?) on the ark could not have differentiated to the many millions of species today. A horse pair, he says, for example, could not have evolved into zebras, donkeys, Llamas, etc.... and only several thousands of pairs of animals would have fit onto the Ark.
Ankerberg and other old earth creationists like Hugh Ross are NOT evolutionists.
Ankerberg ignores the variations we already know about in DNA.
NO ONE knows how many variations original DNA had, it is entirely possible that two white people can have a Negro child, and not have cheated on each other.
It is only recently that we had genetic isolation, where dominant genes tend to dictate blond hair in Scandanavians, black skin in Africans, and different eyes in Asia
NONE of that is macro evolution, it is just variation in dna and also genetic isolation of donors
Different animals coming from an original pair is quite possible, look at the different number of housecats, dogs, cows, elephants, fish, birds: each is distinct in their look, but many of those species can trace back to a single pair if there was genetic differences in the first place in the original DNA
No one looks alike, do they? No dogs look alike, do they?
DNA variation.
He may not be an evolutionist, but he certainly is abandoning parts of God’s word that don’t fit his current ideology. The geneology records IF the world were billions of years old certainly don’t reflect man being aroudn a billion or so years, nor do the fossil records nor genetic mutations records in hte Mitochondrial EVE project.
As well, yo will find that the time since the flood certain does give neough time for variation within species to account for all that we know today- infact, you find it is plenty of time, and certainly follows the fossil records quite well- Ackenburg can beleive whatever he likes, but adopting hte position he is now adopting juts shows he willing to sell his soul, ignore the evidnece, and beleive man’s word over God’s- But who can blame him? There’s so much ridicule and petty chi;ldishness from the macro camp that weakkneed people just can’t be asked to hold true to God and the actual facts. Much better to just beleive someone’s assumptions about time past, and put your faith in dating methods that aren’t accurate past 6000 or so years than to actually trust hte Creator and beleive hte objective science. After all, man is hte one we’ll be held accoutnable to on judgement day- not God [Sarcasm]
I would say that this is exactly what happened, however. The conditions the Bible describes after the landing of the Ark - extremely small "starter" populations, huge amounts of empty space into which they could expand - are tailor made for the massive genetic drift that would lead to a "Founder Principle" type of rapid speciation, followed by stabilisation once the populations got large enough. This could have occurred, based on the generational lengths of most animals, within a few hundred years.