Evolving from Simple to Complex?

[Mazzy]

The discovery of Pre-Cambrian pollen was indeed a surprise in the 1960s, and I am even more surprised that no further work has been carried out on it since then. Roraima is not vastly inaccessible, and if any creationist geologists would care to pop up and dig out new samples, they could destroy both the current theory of evolution, and defend the concept of the global flood in one neat swoop. I wonder why they haven't. Evolutionists think that given the similarity of the pollen to that of Tertiary plants, the fact that unlike the rock in which it is found, it appears both uncompressed and unheated, and the fact that no other plant remains, such as leaves or roots occur in the same strata, are all evidence that the pollen is later contamination.

Pollen is set adrift in the air and does not need to be found with a plant. We are actually fortunate to have the specimen at all.

I also believe this bit of the following article...

"Actually the assignment of a certain number of millions of years to a rock formation does not derive from the strata itself. The standard Geological Column became the reference point, even though it does not appear anywhere on earth except in text books. And the ages assigned to the layers were derived from long age evolutionary assumptions – not from the scientific facts, – as the column was established long before we even had radiometric dating. Yet the column and its assumptions are used along with index fossils to assign dates to sedimentary rock layers and which in turn is used to date any fossil in that rock layer."

http://qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-ra ... ic-dating/

[Kurieuo]

The main mistake, I see with Day-Age interpretations like RTB's, is in believing when Moses formulated the text, his concern was more with scientific matters rather than theology. Israel's in particular. In ignoring the intended theology behind the text, much gets missed in trying to literalise the text in a manner that creates a 1:1 alignment with science.

Here's where I come down on that topic...
And I know this is not a typical position for a day-ager.

I do not think Moses' 'original intent' when he wrote Genesis 1 bears much resemblance to Hugh Ross's interpretation of Genesis 1.
Moses had a vastly different context and set of paradigms when he wrote Genesis 1 than those Hugh Ross has now.

However, I do believe that the words that the Holy Spirit guided Moses to use within his paradigm are 'flexible' enough, so that those same words are consistent with the scientific data when used and understood within Hugh Ross's paradigm.

I agree, that as a Day-Ager, while RTB and other Day-Age sites also were good sources, I'd often nuance this and that and find my own way mainly on smaller things. I'm sure other Day-Age people do too. In fact, I think what draws many to Day-Age is a kind of relief that science isn't the enemy, or that we're not "heretical", "lacking faith", or "rejecting Scripture/Christ" for having a different interpretation than what has become a quite dominant and oppressive, yet as I see slipping, popularist 20th century YEC interpretation amongst Evangelicals.

So, re: Hugh Ross' his RTB's interpretation, they have much more openness to people telling them, no I think you're wrong there and it's more like this, all the while still falling under a Day-Age umbrella. One aspect I liked seeing with Ross, Rana, Ken Samples and others, was their manner and the respect they displayed towards Christians with differing interpretations of Scripture, beliefs and ideas. Whether someone was an Atheist/Agnostic scientist (Eugene Scott), Theistic Evolution (such as Biologos), someone is YEC, what I saw in them was a more gracious and Christ-like attitude.

I do not believe that original intent in the original context is the only way that God communicates truth through his word. We can see this clearly demonstrated as OT Scriptures regarding Messianic expectations and the Resurrection take on 'new meaning' when placed in a new context and theological paradigm.

If you look at Messianic prophecies, there is often an "original context" and intent, but also much more to be revealed.

Those Messianic expectations often found in the OT books by prophets like Isaiah, don't take on "new" meaning, so much as greater meaning to them becoming more clear to us and obvious. The more to be revealed meaning, also appears intended by such prophets, and in many cases was understood in Jewish thought itself as also possessing Messianic intent.

I believe something similar can be said of Genesis. Moses employs a certain framework to introduce God, Israel's God, who is truly God since He is the One True Lord of all creation. This is the theology, the basic message, ALL can agree to -- the "forest" so-to-speak -- that Israel's God is being introduced as the one true God who is responsible for creating the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything within them (contrast such against the deities of other nations whether Egyptians or pagan nations).

Such theology is barely, if ever, even considered in the Day-Age/YEC debate. Instead most focus is placed upon one word (yom) and the question of "how long is a day?". An issue Moses I see had little concern for when employing such language to simply introduce his God, the God of Israel, the one subject who consistently remains embedded alongside Israel's history throughout Genesis and indeed the entire OT.

If there are multiple meanings for a given Greek or Hebrew word in Scripture, and one meaning is consistent with natural revelation and another meaning contradicts natural revelation, I think it is circular nonsense to cling to the meaning that introduces the alleged 'contradiction' and then assert contradiction because of the interpretation that you choose to embrace.

We see that logic in...
yom must mean 24 hours
erets must mean the whole planet
and we see that same logic from those who chose to interpret zera, es, and peri in a manner that contradicts natural revelation instead of in a manner that complements natural revelation.

My bias is simple. I believe Special Revelation and natural revelation are complementary.
So I will defer to complementary interpretations of Scripture over contradictory interpretations of Scripture.

You say we see that logic in "yom must mean 24 hours", but I'd disagree that such is in fact any more logical than Day-Agers assigning "ages" to yom. Rather, I think honestly, Moses intended to employ the language of an ordinary day within a 6 day work, 7th day rest framework (which obviously has some sort Sabbatical intent and is a unique signature of Israel's God).

YECs who believe the Sun was created on Day 4 and state yom means 24-hours are just as guilty as Day-Agers when it comes to substituting in a period of time that simply isn't intended by the literary framework Moses is employing in introducing Israel's God. I'd recommend reading over another thread I started some time ago which Jac also participated in: Do YECs accept "ordinary days"? It seems clear to me that "24-hours" is no more logical or literal than "an age of time."

I sincerely believe that many YECs are logically inconsistent when they often claim that yom is really an ordinary day, and then substitute an ordinary day with "24-hours" so Days 1-3 work smoothly. Given the popular YEC interpretation places the creation of the Sun on Day 4, days 1 to 3 while they could represent a period of time, most definitely are by no means literally "ordinary days."

The question YECs throw at Day-Agers, is that the word yom doesn't literally mean an age or period of time. Rather, yom is a symbolic manner of such. Yet, YECs ironically make a similar mistake in saying yom should be understood in the context of a period of time (24 hours), such as "a 3-day journey into the wilderness." I don't know about you, but I see no context which says yom ought to be thought in Genesis 1 as referring to time. Rather, I see additional language like separating the "day" from "night", "light" from "darkness", "evening" and "morning"... all properties we do assign to an ordinary day. BUT, we do not see something like:

• God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. [And the expanse separated from the waters below and above took a day.] And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Compare this to Joshua's long day, where the Sun stands still in the middle of the sky (which defines Joshua's long "day"), we do also see "day" (yom) being understood in the context of a period of time:

• And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. (Joshua 10:13)

So then, ironically many YECs who argue that yom is to be interpreted as a time of 24-hours, and that Day-Agers are not being as literal, fall foul of not being literal themselves. They are taking merely one property of a day, what we associate as being 24-hours, and substituting in a 24-hour period of time instead of the full meaning of an ordinary yom. Yet, if we actually look at the pattern of language used in Genesis 1 with evening and morning and the like, it seems clear Moses is employing plain language of "days". In fact, the root meaning of yom is to be hot, as in the warm hours of a day. So then, associating yom in Genesis with only a property of a time period (whether such is seen as 12/24 hours or an extended period of time), is just literally wrong.

An ordinary day is not merely one property that we associate with day, but rather all that a day represents. Consider a property often assigned to human beings like "self-awareness". To substitute is this one hallmark of human beings, and now say every time human beings are mentioned it means "a self-awareness" would be just wrong (unless such a context was clearly given for believing such to be the case). Rather, the ability to be self-aware is just one of many properties we associate with humanity above many other species.

Now I believe Moses intended to make use of "days", conjure up imagery in our minds of those who heard the story of Genesis 1, as being that of real days like we experience, with the Sun viewed in the sky, a real sunrise, a real sunset, sunny daytime and the like. This is just the literary framework, a very sabbatical framework, he used to show Israel's God is the God of the heavens, land and seas and all that is within them. And then he signature stamps Israel's God as the Lord of all creation by having Him rest on the seventh day.

Once one sees Moses intended a true ordinary day in the language employed, the question then becomes:

1. "Is Moses is simply employing a 6-1 structure as a literary framework to introduce Israel's God as the one true God?" (the theological meaning of Genesis 1), OR
2. "Is Moses using a 6-1 structure because God literally created everything in six days and literally rested on the seventh?"

I think there is enough evidence in Scripture to warrant the first and deny the second. Understanding Moses' primary theological intent in introducing Israel's God as the sovereign Lord of all creation, the second becomes largely irrelevant. If one believes God did create in 6 ordinary days or over 6 periods of time, and it doesn't even come to one's mind that Israel's God is being stamped as the Lord of all creation, then they've missed the forest for some trees.

In fact, I think Moses would probably look at someone cross-eyed, if after reading aloud Genesis 1, someone listening asked him, "So were these days 24 hours long?" They've kind of missed the point of it all.

[abelcainsbrother]

I've read through this thread and I have to say it was interesting from each perspective,with that being said though I think that people have been to influenced to look at everything from an evolution perspective.It is hard not to let it effect the way we look at the evidence in the earth. Now I know that some of you don't fully buy into all that evolution teaches.But I really think that the evidence in the earth has been totally looked at wrong based on it being viewed through the evolution perspective. So while ya'll look at the evidence which was all gathered from an evolution perspective I don't believe the evidence has been looked at from the right perspective every since evolution became a scientific theory.

Now a case can be made and it has been made well how it appears that over billions of years certian life seemed to appear all at once then newer different kinds of life appeared later at different times over billions of years however this is looking at things from an evolution perspective even if you don't accept all of evolution.You still must. I don't look at it from this perspective though.I look at it from a biblical viewpoint first and then try to look at the science and evidence that has been discovered and this leads me to believe the evidence has been looked at from the wrong perspective.

I think that instead of looking at the evidence from an evolution view-point instead we should look at it from the perspective of two different worlds that had differdent life in them. Now we know about and can see the kinds of life that we have in this world yet when we look at the fossils and the evidence in the earth we see totally different kinds of life than the kinds of life we have in this world.I think this is the viewpoint that we should choose to look at the evidence from instead of an evolution perspective when we still do not even know if life evolves.

So look at the evidence from a totally different perspective,and if you do? I think that you'll realize the evidence better substantiates a former world totally different than this world and not just with the animal life but tree and plant life also. Just try it for a month on your own when looking at evidence.

[Mazzy]

Hugh, the "intervention" began with how and when God created various things. The interconnectedness of species and their interdependencies,, their created environments, and especially of their timings of the arrival and interdependencies of all dictate how things transpired. This is true whether of evolution or even progressive creationism. Decisions (ALWAYS known, and not made, by God - He doesn't come to new decisions He didn't previously have) as to what, where, and when, and knowing all about what will transpire with each, are dependent upon the timings of each thing introduced. Again, pointless to belabor arguments over "Does God micromanage the Creation."

I reckon Miacids are dogs/wolves and cats and other carnivores all suddenly appearing in the fossil record about the same time. Most of the drawings are made from a few teeth or non co-located bones. There are likely some extinct animals there as well. Miacis latouri was created from 2 teeth. After finding more teeth and doing phylogeny based on no factual information at all, it was assigned to a new genus. It's amazing an in my view ridiculous to even discuss this sort of fictitious evidence. It may be interesting to see these two try to clarify anything at all, seeing as evolutionary researchers are unable to.

Here is what Wiki has to say about Miacids ..."Since Edward Drinker Cope first described the genus Miacis in 1872, at least twenty other species have been assigned to Miacis. However, these species share few synapomorphies other than plesiomorphic characteristics of Miacids in general. This reflects the fact that Miacis has been treated as a wastebasket taxon and contains a diverse collection of species that belong to the stemgroup within the Carnivoramorpha.[2]"

If a pelvis similar to a dog is found, why not take that as evidence for some sort of dog?

[Kurieuo]

I think Kurieou's post is a very good summary. But permit me a small flight of fancy, and then a question.

Supposing he and I had looked down upon a group of miacids, living in the trees in North America about 42 million years ago. Resembling cats, but with rather rat-like faces, they preyed on tree-lizards and birds, and rarely descended to the forest floor. Over the years, we begin to distinguish that an increasing number of these creatures actually do descend to the floor, preying on ground-dwelling animals more and more. Why? Maybe there is overpopulation in the trees, or a shortage of lizards, or a group of larger predators which used to hunt on the ground have moved away or become extinct. We are watching the development of two species from one - something apparently allowed by many creationists as well as evolutionists. For a while we cannot even distinguish between the two groups by sight, and they freely interbreed, but after ten thousand generations or so, they not only look different, but no longer interbreed at all. What we cannot predict is that these two new species are the ancestors of all modern cats and dogs, and we have been watching the birth of two different taxonomic families, not just two different species.

Now, if Kurieou accepts that this scenario is not impossible, then where exactly is, and how do we identify, divine intervention? And if he does not, then would he like to suggest a scenario which better fits his idea? You see, although I understand the difference in philosophy between Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolution, I still don’t really understand how they might differ in practice.

Such seems plausible and possible as presented. I don't believe even YECs, besides the millions of years, would disagree with such as presented being naturally possible. Yet, I also think it is wrong to look at species based upon similarities and differences in their physical characteristics. Genetics has proved such is often wrong, yet such it is still often used.

For example, consider butterflies. Some had been lumped together "visually" as the same species. However, when scientists examined their DNA they were quite different. Thus, what many considered as the same species are now split into multiple species (New Butterfly Species ID'ed by DNA). So here we have two butterflies looking the same, which if they evolved, had to have evolved the same features independently from each other. Or, possibly, such is an indication that God just directly created two butterflies that looked the same and coding them differently.

Consider though how difficult it can be to define "species". We use this word as a matter of convention and convenience in discussion, yet defining precisely what such means can be quite difficult. So then, if what you're trying to get at, is to have a Progressive Creationist like myself say which were unique creations (species of life created brand new) versus which may have come about via natural means, I think such isn't entirely reasonable. Perhaps I could produce some scientific criteria for such, based upon the improbabilities, or complexities such as IDists put forward, but then if one still prefers a natural explanation no matter how improbable such might be, then such doesn't really matter.

Re: species, consider defining different species of spiders and what this article here says. The spiders look quite visually different, but can interbreed, so should they be considered the same species? Perhaps so. As a Progressive Creationist, I'd be comfortable with saying God created one set, and that over time natural selection and mutations happened creating other colours which gave them advantages in their respective environments. Yet, each of them have the same root ancestor and can still inbreed.

"Ring species" may present a problem for defining species. Should each creature within the "ring" be considered the same species or as separate species? That is, does the fact creature A can breed with creature B but not creature C, while A and C can breed but not B and C mean they all be considered the same species?

I'm not saying Progressive Creation provides a clean picture of special creative acts of different creatures, but neither does Evolution provide clear evolutionary pathways and forms of species. Evolutionary scientists would however say when presented with an obvious example confirmed both based upon physical attributes and genetics, that "yes, that most definitely is a unique species." Similarly, while I may not be able to pinpoint unique creations, classes like plants, reptilians, amphibians and mammals have a very different biology such I'm confident declaring there were many special (direct) creations each within their own class. I just don't have a precise litmus test for defining exactly what creatures were specially created.

[Kurieuo]

You see, although I understand the difference in philosophy between Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolution, I still don’t really understand how they might differ in practice.

"In practice," perhaps there is an embedded assumption that if one assumes God they'd not be interested in exploring how something works, justifying their beliefs, or the like? "God did it", and an "I'll be on my merry way now!"

But, as you know, Lemaître was no doubt inspired by his belief God created and proposed what is now commonly accepted as "big bang" cosmology. He is one of many Christians inspired by his belief in God to know more about physics, indeed was able to somehow tune out to the war around him all the while studying. Indeed, such I see as a valid form of worshiping God, just as much as praying and singing.

In practice, everything I'd expect would be much similar. Perhaps, the hypothesis being tested would be different, different assumptions as to whether something has purpose yet to be discovered, or is just a vestige unworthy of investigation. Otherwise, likely just different explanations told in accordance to the story of one's philosophy and other beliefs held to.

[hughfarey]

I also believe this bit of the following article... "Actually the assignment of a certain number of millions of years to a rock formation does not derive from the strata itself. The standard Geological Column became the reference point, even though it does not appear anywhere on earth except in text books. And the ages assigned to the layers were derived from long age evolutionary assumptions – not from the scientific facts, – as the column was established long before we even had radiometric dating. Yet the column and its assumptions are used along with index fossils to assign dates to sedimentary rock layers and which in turn is used to date any fossil in that rock layer." http://qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-ra ... ic-dating/

It's a shame that the article doesn't quote any sources for its claims, so it will be difficult for me to track down and attempt to refute them. It seems to be based on the RATE research carried out mainly by Andrew Snelling and Russell Humphries, for the Institute of Creation Research, which has, hardly surprisingly, been criticised in detail, such as in the response by Gary Loechelt. Broadly, the statement above, that the standard geological column was established and used as a reference in the 19th century, before there was any radiometric dating, is true, but by the same token, its usefulness does not depend on radiometric dating, and it stands as much as a refutation of creationism on its own today as it did then. And then, of course, far from discrediting the column, radiometric dating has verified it in almost every case, and helped to clear up anomalies. The circular reasoning so often claimed by creationists of evolutionists is not demonstrated by the research.

What is slightly amusing is the curious tone adopted by the article, as if speaking to somebody wholly unversed in any geology at all. This: "And today we know through lab experiments and natural disasters (such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens) that major layering of rock strata can happen catastrophically in a short period of time" and especially this: "Why else do we find marine fossils on the tops of all the major mountain ranges?" suggest that the authors cannot imagine that any other explanation than a global flood has ever been thought of!

And next, leaping from geology to biology in one bound:

Here is what Wiki has to say about Miacids ..."Since Edward Drinker Cope first described the genus Miacis ...

No. You have mistaken the genus Miacis with the family Miacidae, which I was careful to avoid myself. Kurieou, I think, can see the point of my scenario, and agrees that it is possible that to an observer there might be no observable difference between what a Theistic Evolutionist would expect of the emergence of dogs as separate from cats, and what a Progressive Creationist would expect. The difference might be either microscopic, or one exclusively of philosophy rather than molecular construction. It would be very interesting to me to know what you think actually happened. Sometimes I think people construct castles in the air which don't look quite so solid at foundation level. Do you think there was once an empty patch of North American forest, in which, suddenly and spontaneously, a small group of canids popped into existence? Roughly how many? Were they all adults? Or was it a family group? Try to describe exactly what one might have seen. You need not claim it was exactly what happened, any more than I did, but I would be good for you to suggest at least a plausible possibility consistent with your philosophy.

[hughfarey]

I also think it is wrong to look at species based upon similarities and differences in their physical characteristics. Genetics has proved such is often wrong, yet such it is still often used.'

Absolutely right. However, I wanted to overleap the rather minor squabbles we occasionally see about whether lions and tigers are the same "kind" or not, and look at the appearance on earth of two groups of animals which are now universally seen as completely different. Few creationists, I guess, think that some original Miacid was originally created (and brought into the ark), from which all modern dogs and cats from poodles to panthers are descended. That would be such a concession to evolution as to erode the concept of separate creation beyond redemption. Evolutionists, of course, do not believe that the evolution of separate families of animals is any different from the evolution of separate varieties, sub-species, species, genera or any other taxonomic level, which is why I described my little scenario in such detail. Little would we know, in seeing these two little groups of animals frisking about, one mainly in the trees and one mainly on the ground, and occasionally interbreeding, that 42 million years later they would be the ancestors of corgis and cougars. But if a creationist thinks that 'dogs' and 'cats' were created separately, and/or spontaneously, then perhaps, as I asked Mazzy above, one of them would care to describe what exactly that might have looked like.

I'm not saying Progressive Creation provides a clean picture of special creative acts of different creatures, but neither does Evolution provide clear evolutionary pathways and forms of species.

You're right, of course. No doubt other evolutionists could pounce on my scenario and say that they thought it was the other way round (dogs in trees, cats on the ground) or that it was nothing to do with trees, but breeding season or diet or the seasonal intervention of a watercourse or many other possibilities. But what I have done is present an actual possible credible scenario that fits my beliefs. If anyone thinks my scenario is impossible, let him or her suggest one that might actually have happened that fits their beliefs.

[Kurieuo]

I also think it is wrong to look at species based upon similarities and differences in their physical characteristics. Genetics has proved such is often wrong, yet such it is still often used.'

Absolutely right. However, I wanted to overleap the rather minor squabbles we occasionally see about whether lions and tigers are the same "kind" or not, and look at the appearance on earth of two groups of animals which are now universally seen as completely different. Few creationists, I guess, think that some original Miacid was originally created (and brought into the ark), from which all modern dogs and cats from poodles to panthers are descended.

Noah's ark, is whole different discussion, which I've evolved on in recent times.

Interestingly, Day-Age normally runs side-by-side with a local flood theory. I did once accept local flood ideas, but didn't really investigate whether it matched with real world knowledge (until relatively recently). The timing of humanity used, since humanity must be gathered together all in one place, is very awkward to say the least. Then, all known local floods could have just been walked away from so kind of don't feel that catastrophic.

Then YEC normally runs side-by-side with a global flood idea and that "kinds" of animals were taken on the ark, including dinosaurs. Though some were left to perish along with other animals, according to AiG.

As for myself, I think something like a global catastrophe happened that affected most of humanity. We have many mythical flood stories around the world which, like a guy who's made it his professional looking into myths and matching such with real events (Bruce Masse), I think such ought to be treated more seriously. Obvious "mythical" elements can be discarded, but then certain shared features mentioned in many of them are interesting. Devoid of Noah's flood, I'd still say something drastic happened in the past that hit many continents, but what could it be?

I do think Masse provides some interesting views, you can read a good summary here: https://www.thoughtco.com/recent-cosmic ... rth-170379

[hughfarey]

I wish I hadn't included the words in parentheses! I still want to know what the creation of the "dog kind" might actually have looked like, if not via the visually indistinguishable Progressive Creation or Theistic Evolution.

[Kurieuo]

Are you talking to me? I'm not sure I understand the question. And admit my ignorance so-far-as Miacids are concerned.

[Byblos]

From simple to complex is a fact, not only in recent biological evolutionary processes (and yes, they are considered recent in the grand scheme of things) ...

One fact that just isn't true, or scientifically supported today. My opening post I believe showed that with strong evidence contradicting such a fact. Hugh himself doesn't appear to dismiss either, even if he is still comfortable with evolution as neatly explaining such findings.

Your OP's title doesn't say anything about biological evolution (although, I presume, it is implied). I was merely pointing out that the simple-to-complex evolutionary process predates its biological descendant (quite literally) by billions of years. That's the history of our universe, that's how elements evolved, from simple to complex, almost as if it was rigged that way from the get-go (and I say that in great jest, I hope that was obvious).

But perhaps I veered the discussion way too far back than you had intended. My apologies.

[Kurieuo]

From simple to complex is a fact, not only in recent biological evolutionary processes (and yes, they are considered recent in the grand scheme of things) ...

One fact that just isn't true, or scientifically supported today. My opening post I believe showed that with strong evidence contradicting such a fact. Hugh himself doesn't appear to dismiss either, even if he is still comfortable with evolution as neatly explaining such findings.

Your OP's title doesn't say anything about biological evolution (although, I presume, it is implied). I was merely pointing out that the simple-to-complex evolutionary process predates its biological descendant (quite literally) by billions of years. That's the history of our universe, that's how elements evolved, from simple to complex, almost as if it was rigged that way from the get-go (and I say that in great jest, I hope that was obvious).

But perhaps I veered the discussion way too far back than you had intended. My apologies.

Ahh, I get you know. Yes, I was focused on more specific biology. But, true, cosmic evolution is nothing short of miraculous. And, for me, it's easier to conceive of rocks and gases naturally falling into some order according to the laws of physics which was planned out. Such is also more demonstrable, than it is so-far-as biological life coming onto the scene is concerned.

[hughfarey]

Are you talking to me? I'm not sure I understand the question. And admit my ignorance so-far-as Miacids are concerned.

Not really; it's just that whatever the subject, even the slightest mention of the a-- word is enough to divert it towards Noah's Fludde. Again. and the second part was not aimed at you, as I think we understand ourselves sufficiently well. It was a sort of general comment on the fact that however one describes the version of creation one believes in, if it happened, it must have been observable, and I'd like to know what believers in the spontaneous creation of whole organisms envisage.

[Kurieuo]

Are you talking to me? I'm not sure I understand the question. And admit my ignorance so-far-as Miacids are concerned.

Not really; it's just that whatever the subject, even the slightest mention of the a-- word is enough to divert it towards Noah's Fludde. Again. and the second part was not aimed at you, as I think we understand ourselves sufficiently well. It was a sort of general comment on the fact that however one describes the version of creation one believes in, if it happened, it must have been observable, and I'd like to know what believers in the spontaneous creation of whole organisms envisage.

Miacids aside, It does have me looking into how we got all our different looking domestic dogs.