falsifying evolution

[Susan B. Farmer]

>I don't think the battle is to be joined on whether evolution is
>falsifiable. Evolution can be directly observed in the change of gene
>frequencies in populations over time. Creationists who accept
>microevolution presumably do so because it is an observable fact. It's
>pretty hard to deny that some bacterial strains have developed resistance
>to antibiotics or that some insects populations have developed resistance
>to herbicides. Creationists deny that evolution leads to speciation.
>Therefore the evidence we need to produce is not evidence of evolution, but
>evidence of speciation. We must emphasize the few known examples where
>speciation occurs extremely rapidly, or even "instantly" in the case of
>speciation by polyploidy in plants.
>

In my experience, many Creationists don't have a problem with speciation.
They will acknowledge that a different form of a lily can arise because
of environmental/hydrid/polyploid/whatever conditions.  They contend
that it was a lily before; and it's still a lily -- albeit a different
one.  Most Creationists have a problem with the kind of speciation
events that would cause the rise of a pteridophyte from an alga.

Susan
sfarmer at goldsword.com