A question, Doug, from a layperson!  If I understand it correctly, the phylogeneric classification
system is just a group of boxes us compusive, orderly types created to squeeze all those living
things into.  And, lo and behold, upon closer examination by other compusive perfectionists, they
keep jumping from box to box; even all the way across phylums.  The whole system is just an
artificial device with lines drawn that get finer and finer until differences between boxes are
becoming indistinguishable, because, in fact, there are minute gradations giving rise to "higher and
higher" forms.  Can such an artifice serve as an argument  denying macroevolution?  It's continual
revision with increasingly less differentiation between classifications at all levels seems to me to
actually argue just the opposite.

--
Marlo
Merritt Island, Florida
[log in to unmask]

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> It is one thing to say that one mollusk species can arise from another
> (microevolution), but quite another to say that a crustacean species could
> arise from a mollusk species (macroevolution).  No self-respecting
> creationist will deny that microevolution (an observable process) can and
> does occur.  We simply deny credence to claims of that which is unobservable.
>  There is no evidence of phylum giving rise to another phylum.  There is no
> such evidence in the fossil record, which is precisely why the "Process of
> Evolution" remains a theory.  To believe in that which is unobservable is to
> have faith, whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist.
>
> Doug Shelton
> Mobile, Alabama