>Its true there can be no direct evidence of evolution itself actually
taking >place, everyone knows this. But this is no argument against
evolution >occurring.

Evolution can be easily observed, and it is therefore a fact not a theory.
Evolution is merely change in the frequency of genetically based
characteristics of a population over time. Such microevolutionary changes
have been observed repeatedly in natural populations and in the laboratory.
Even creationists usually do not deny that microevolution occurs. They deny
that microevolution over long periods of time can account for large scale
changes (macroevolution).

Speciation has been also been directly observed: there is a form of
instantaneous speciation among plants in which the number of chromosomes
doubles in hybrids between species, resulting in offspring that cannot
interbreed with either parent species, but can interbreed among themselves.

This debate is also raging on the taxacom discussion group, and in response
to one of my postings there, Susan Farmer said:

"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 [fern] from an alga."

Gary

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Rosenberg, Ph.D.                     [log in to unmask]
Malacology & Invertebrate Paleontology    gopher://erato.acnatsci.org
Academy of Natural Sciences               http://www.acnatsci.org
1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway            Phone 215-299-1033
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195 USA           Fax   215-299-1170