For example, I absolutely agree with Osborn that lions tearing off bark for food is silly. But which scientifically informed creationist actually holds to such a ludicrous position?
The firs thing that must be said is there were no "lions" in Eden. There was only the first animal type of the various created kinds, or barmaids. Since lions belong to the cat kind, there was probably some primordial cat that is the ancestor of all the cats we have today…In fact, I would venture to say that many of the animals we see today probably did not exist in the primordial world.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/articles/DeathBeforeFall_review.pdf
I agree with much of what Daniel says here. However, I don't see that creationism is logically, exegetically, or scientifically committed to the proposition that all modern cats descend from a single exemplar.
Must we say that Siberian Tigers and caracals all descend from one exemplar? Why could there not be a primordial kind for the big cats and another primordial kind for small cats?
Must weasels and sea otters all derive from a single mustela? What about God making an aquatic mustela kind from which modern river otters and sea otters derive?
Likewise, must turtles and tortoises all derive from a single Chelonian exemplar? Why not a primordial kind for turtles and another primordial kind for tortoises–given that one is terrestrial and the other aquatic?
Currently, some bats are insectivorous, some bats are frugivorous, and some bats are hematophagous. According to creationism, these might represent adaptations. They all descend from a single exemplar.
But I don't see that creationism precludes an insectivorous Ur-bat in distinction to a frugivorous Ur-bat. I don't see that creationism demands an Ur-cat, Ur-bat, &c. The main thing is fiat creation or special creation of natural kinds, and not creation of singular kinds–where everything of a kind must branch out from one trunk. Why not an Ur-turtle and an Ur-tortoise?
Similar terrestrial and aquatic or marine species needn't derive from one exemplar. Rather, you can have original diversity along with subsequent diversification within terrestrial types and aquatic (or marine) types.
I see no reason why, even on creationist grounds, oviparous snakes, viviparous, land snakes, sea snakes, venomous snakes, and constrictors must all be derived from a single generic exemplar.
Oviparous snakes can be one kind of snake, which descend from an oviparous exemplar. Sea snakes can be another kind of snake, which descend from a marine exemplar. And so on and so forth.
Oviparous snakes can be one kind of snake, which descend from an oviparous exemplar. Sea snakes can be another kind of snake, which descend from a marine exemplar. And so on and so forth.
Seems to me that Daniel is mixing creationism with a conventional taxonomy, where you classify organisms from general to specific. But the notion of fiat natural kinds is compatible with some basic varieties from the get-go.
Indeed, it would seem difficult to see how mammals that lay eggs (monotremes) could have come from the same kind as mammals that give birth to live young - i.e. placentals and marsupials. In fact, even placentals and marsupials are remarkably different and arguably could've descended from different kinds as well.
ReplyDeleteYes, I see no reason why, even on creationist grounds, oviparous snakes, viviparous, land snakes, sea snakes, venomous snakes, and constrictors must all be derived from a single generic exemplar.
DeleteOviparous snakes can be one kind of snake, which descend from an oviparous exemplar. Sea snakes can be another kind of snake, which descend from a marine exemplar. And so on and so forth.