Species change over time. Variation within a species is demonstrated through observation and is unquestioned by everyone that is familiar with the issue.

However, the question neo-Darwinism is unable to answer is, is not how [or why] finch-beaks change, but how finch beaks came into existence in the first place. The way that question has been dealt with in the past and even up until now is, that small change over the short-run is extrapolated into large change [ie, origin of complex organs etc] over the long-run. It is a question only creationists or ID'ers are willing to ask.

It is significant to some, that the fossil record most strongly demonstrates the same kind of process which is observed, that is, limited variation within a type. For example, in the elephant type one could look to present-day African and Indian elephants and compare them to the extinct Mastadon or Whooly Mammoth, and see a close resemblance between them. But, how does one account for the origin of the type?

This is not to say that there are not theories which involve this type originating from some precursor. However, these are valid only to the extent one is willing to "buy into" the prerequiste assumption that all that is needed for this process to occur is small change coupled with "lots of time".

After a while this seems contrived and highly speculative.

• Biblical "kinds" undefined. - johnpowell - April 4, 2001 - 17:05 UTC
• What do you have to replace science? - johnpowell - April 4, 2001 - 17:09 UTC
  • That is not the issue - isaiaha41 - April 4, 2001 - 17:51 UTC
    • What can replace natural science? - johnpowell - April 4, 2001 - 22:32 UTC
      • Natural Science! - doctordick - April 5, 2001 - 15:51 UTC
        • F=ma is the DEFINITION of force. - alexander - April 5, 2001 - 17:12 UTC
        • Weight and mass - johnpowell - April 5, 2001 - 20:38 UTC
          • Weight as Force - doctordick - April 6, 2001 - 13:58 UTC
            • "Again" says the little one. - johnpowell - April 6, 2001 - 16:45 UTC
              • No real argument here! - doctordick - April 7, 2001 - 00:52 UTC
• There is no such thing as "sudden origin of specie" - alexander - April 4, 2001 - 19:05 UTC
  • Adult at 18, 21 or 13? - johnpowell - April 4, 2001 - 22:24 UTC
    • Is this right? - doctordick - April 5, 2001 - 14:52 UTC
      • Exactly. Clear definitions are a must in discussions. - alexander - April 5, 2001 - 15:47 UTC
      • The mind is willing but other concerns make their demands - johnpowell - April 5, 2001 - 18:49 UTC
    • Or Wrong! - doctordick - April 5, 2001 - 14:54 UTC
  • says who? - isaiaha41 - April 5, 2001 - 17:42 UTC
    • Why then your DNA is 98.5% chimp's DNA? - alexander - April 5, 2001 - 22:23 UTC
    • Thank God, but don't blame Him - johnpowell - April 6, 2001 - 16:38 UTC