[Hank Kerchief]

So I gather that the creationist argument against evolution doesn't really deny the fact of natural selection but is focused on the unlikely creation of the first cell. Am I right on that point?

I cannot speak for creationists, since I an not one, nor can I speak for evolutionists either, because I am also not one of them. Both views are problematic, and neither is conclusive in my view. Personally, the whole subject of origins, from the question of the origin of the universe (cosmology) to the origin (if that is even right word in this case) of life is terribly over-emphasized. It is much more important to notice that we here and to discover what our natures are and what the nature of "here" (the world we are in) is, then it is to discover how we got here.

However, I am familiar with most of the views in both areas, and while there is great variety in both camps, in general, I think creationists do not deny all natural selection, or what they call, "micro-evolution," small changes within the limits of a species, but I'm sure no creationist would agree that one species could evolve into another one, especially not by means of natural selection. To the thorough-going creationist, the species are what was created, and like can only beget like.

Personally, I do not believe there is scientific evidence that speciation is absolute, but it is apparent that if new species can result from either natural mutations (which would have to be both viable and efficient) or genetic manipulation, it is very unlikely and difficult. That is why we can make domesticated cows from wild cows, but cannot make domesticated chickens starting with buzzards.

Two quick points, about which I would be interested in your comments:

1. One problem with evolution is the fact it requires new species to evolve from others. All higher animals reproduce sexually, meaning there must be both a male and a female. A new species means it is reproductively incompatible with all previous species. All animals of the same species can reproduce (even if with difficulty). This means, the first evolved new species must not only have evolved one newly mutated creature, but two, one male and one female. The statistical chances of producing even one viable mutation by "accicent" are very high. The statistical chances of producing two identical ones at the same time, and one of one sex and one of the other, really is statistically impossible.

2. A problem with creation is since life never comes into being "spontaneously, and life only comes from life, if this is truly a universal and absolute principle, life could not have a beginning at all (a distinct possiblity both creationists and evolutionists ignore). If you insist life must have had a beginning, there is no ground whatsoever for insisting that beginning be the one you like, because, not knowing is only evidence of what you do not know, not evidence of what must be. The case for, "everything must have a beginning," has never been made conclusive. It is more-or-less accepted on "faith," becasue all finite things do have beginnings (and ends). If "everything must have a beginning" is truly an absolute universal law, it must also apply to God. Absolute universal laws do not have exceptions.

Personally, I do not care which veiw people take, but I do care that people want to shove their view down other people's throats, especially the throats of our children. Neither view belongs in a government school.

Hank

[Dan Evans]

It seems to me that the definition of "species" is not clearly defined. I've heard it said that the defining characteristic is place and time. So even though a spotted owl may be able to mate with other owls, it is a separate species because it has been in a different place for a long time.

As an illustration of new species generation, consider the Brazilian rainforest. It is said to have existed for 50,000 years and is a habitat to about the same number of species that would become extinct if the rainforest were to go away. So that would mean that one species evolved every year.

1) Like you point out, a new species couldn't evolve abruptly because it would have no mate. But donkeys can mate with a horse producing a mule (and some types of mules can breed) even though they are genetically different. Some animals can breed with others even though they have different numbers of chromosomes.

That would indicate that the process of evolution can be a very gradual and continuous one like Darwin said. Each animal could be a mate with its predecessor or successor but the first could not mate with the last. The problem is a lack of fossil records of continuous evolution. I think this is because the intervening links would be inefficient and have very low populations. We seldom find their fossils and when we do we just call it another species.

This is reasonable because if we have had 10 million generations for a million species that would make 10 trillion fossils. But we have uncovered only a tiny percentage of them so the very tenuous links of low population would be obliterated with time and not visible to us -- all we see are radically different fossils. It's like looking at a photograph of a tree. If the photograph is out of focus and underexposed we see just a group of dots instead branches.

2) At first I thought the concept of something that has no beginning was kind of silly. But then I realized that a circle doesn't have a beginning or end. So maybe what you are getting at is maybe world lines are circular. Maybe the last man alive in the universe invents the first cell of life. It could happen.

As for government schools teaching this stuff -- I don't believe in government schools, I believe in home schooling.