Small changes do not imply large changes (Talk.Origins)
Creationists recognize that small microevolutionary changes occur, but small changes do not imply large changes, so the theory of macroevolution is unjustified.
Creationists recognize that relatively small changes occur within Created kinds, but small changes are not evidence for large changes, so they do not provide evidence for evolution from a single common ancestor.
While this renders Talk Origins' arguments irrelevant, #2 does have issues that need to be addressed .
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
Small changes will not lead to large changes only
- if there is stabilizing selection for organisms to remain as they are, or
- if there is too little time for much to happen, or
- if there are genetic mechanisms limiting change.
There is a fourth:
- If there are natural laws that limit change.
We know that the earth, and life on it, is very old.
Statements like that show that the folks at Talk Origins are not at all objective on this issue. It clearly shows how data that disagrees with the theory can be dismissed. After all in their minds they know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. So if evidence comes along that show it is not, then that evidence is by definition faulty regardless of its quality.
Every dating method this statement is based on is only as accurate as the theoretical system it operates in. If the theoretical system is wrong, so are the dates.
And there is no hint of a mechanism to limit variation.
Wrong! Creationists have long held that, because of the laws of thermodynamics and the principles of information theory, the variations within Created kinds can only go downward, not upward. That is, the increased variation results in a loss of information within each group and therefore each new group is generally weaker and less fit than its ancestors.
So Creationists do have mechanisms that limit variation: these are increased entropy and increased genetic noise.