Many intelligent design advocates reject "macroevolution" but believe in "microevolution". That is, they accept that soot on a tree causes select for black pepper moths over white pepper moths, but deny that species ever increase in complexity over time.
(I've never asked them what they think about the number of Hox genes a zebrafish possesses. I really want to! Or about polyploidy.)
The idea is that God created some dogs and some horses and some fish and whatever, and they "reproduced according to their kind" and differentiated into all the varieties of fish and bird and whatever we have today, but fish didn't evolve into birds.
I was afraid of something like that. I confess that I haven't read up on their "model" because it would only make steam come out of my ears. You don't even need an imagination to accept macroevolution; all you need is arithmetic skills.
It's getting progressively harder to draw a line between microevolution and macroevolution, and since we can demonstrate microevolution (every time we test a chemical for mutagenicity or teratogenicity) it's a harder and harder argument for them to muster, which is one of the reasons they're increasingly relying on irreducible complexity.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-01 07:04 pm (UTC)From:(I've never asked them what they think about the number of Hox genes a zebrafish possesses. I really want to! Or about polyploidy.)
The idea is that God created some dogs and some horses and some fish and whatever, and they "reproduced according to their kind" and differentiated into all the varieties of fish and bird and whatever we have today, but fish didn't evolve into birds.
They probably want their vaccine. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-01 07:29 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 03:29 am (UTC)From: