Hypothetical ancestors

[Richard Zander]

An interesting and inauspicious fact is that creationists accept
microevolution. I actually read a booklet about creationism and was
disconcerted by this. Although microevolution plus fossils easily imply
evolution, one should realize that one's arguments in favor of
microevolution do not counter creationist claims as far as they are
concerned.

And I don't see any identifiable fossils among the interior nodes of
cladograms.



---------
From:
Richard H. Zander
Emeritus Curator of Botany
Clinton Herbarium
FNA Editorial Center at Buffalo

The Buffalo Museum of Science
1020 Humboldt Pkwy
Buffalo, NY 14211 USA

email: rhzander at sciencebuff.org NEW EMAIL ADDRESS! (Note "h" infix)
voice: 716-896-5200 x 351   FAX: 716-897-6723
home: http://www.buffalomuseumofscience.org/div_botany.html
BFNA home: http://www.buffalomuseuofscience/BFNA/BFNAmenu.htm
FNA home: http://hua.huh.harvard.edu/FNA/


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Simon" <Bryan.Simon at ENV.QLD.GOV.AU>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Hypothetical ancestors


> I appreciate the replies I have seen so far on hypothetical ancestors, and
> I suspected these were the sorts of answers I was going to get, so it is
> nice to get confirmation.  However I have to prepare some sort of logical
> reasoning to counteract the creationist views on "origins", which as you
> know can come across very strongly.  To my way of thinking there is no
> issue here, as I view the evolutionary paradigm as the very means of
> how "creation" is directed by whatever one regards a higher power.
> Creationists sometimes tend to be highly qualified scientists, but usually
> in fields such as engineering, chemistry etc and come across
> authoritatively in areas in which they have had no basic training. Their
> use of holy books (Bible, Koran etc) as the source of their information,
> makes it difficult to have any sort of logical discussion. However maybe
> Taxacom is not the best discussion list for a topic such as this.
>