John Turnbull asked about whether creationists encounter difficulties
with Haldane's dilemma given the apparently large post-Flood intra-
baraminic diversification. IF those changes were the result of
point mutations the answer is a resounding YES... in fact
creationists would have more problem with this than evolutionists.
In fact, I do not believe that recombination (as suggested by Tom
Krusz) and even turning off of genes (as suggested by Todd Wood) are
going to be sufficient for the changes occurring in the post-Flood
world either.
Consider the kinds of changes and the time scales for those changes:
1) Preliminary baraminology studies seem to indicate that an average
of something on the order of 50-100 species may have proliferated
within the mammal and bird baramins (e.g. all the foxes, coyotes,
wolves, and dogs being of the same baramin; all the cattle,
antelopes, and possibly sheep and goats being of the same baramin
(approximately 120 living species); the 195 species of anatids - -
ducks, swans and geese -- being of the same baramin, etc.). Among
the insects there may have been a proliferation of something on the
order of 1000 species per baramin;
2) Cave paintings, petroglyphs, and early temple and ceramic
representations of animals shows that modern species have existed
little changed for something on the order of the last 4 millenia.
This suggests that within centuries of the Flood the intrabaraminic
diversification was perhaps largely complete.
The young-earth creationist is thus faced with an explosion of
intrabaraminic diversification which would proliferate morphotypes by
two to three orders of magnitude within only a few centuries! I
would suggest that this sort of diversification is not only far too
fast for mutations and recombinations (even combined), but that if
these were the mechanisms we would expect to see similar
diversification rates today -- and we do not. This in turn suggests
that something quite unusual happened in what I call the 'Arphaxadian
Epoch' -- during the period of the most intense post-Flood residual
catastrophism, and the most intense weather phenomena, the highest
average ocean temperatures, etc. In addition, the large differences
between members of some baramins (e.g. between some of the small
ducks and the large white swans; between the solitary red fox and the
pack wolf; between the killer whales and the sperm whales, between
the bison and the small jungle antelopes, etc.) in not just one, but a
suite of characters (e.g. behavior, color, size, morphology),
suggests that it is not just a matter either of masking a single gene
(unless that gene has a higher regulatory or similar function). I
would suggest that all the species in a given baramin (realized
and realizable) must have been pre-programmed in latent form in the
genetic material of the archaebaramin (the created baramin), and that
most of these 'species packages' were (somehow) expressed immediately
after the Flood.
I believe the reason for the intrabaraminic diversification was to
produce a wide spectrum of morphotypes from which strong post-Flood
selection pressures could choose the best, and thus ensure the
survival of baramins through this period of time. As for what caused
the opening (and subsequent closing) of the genome for this change, I
do not know... Was that preprogrammed also? Was it a certain number
of generations from the creation? Or from the ark? Was it caused by
growth factors never before in their environment? Was it radioactive
elements (e.g. K40) never before in their environment? Was it cosmic
radiation during magnetic field reversals?... Something to work on
in the future.
In any case, I would suggest that if it were a matter of mutation,
recombination, or relatively low-level gene maskings and unveilings,
or even their combination, that creationists would (much more acutely
than evolutionists) fall prey to Haldane's dilemma, just as John
Turnbull suggests. Rather, I would suggest that the changes had to
have been pre-programmed by the One Who originally created them and
fitted them to persist.
Kurt P. Wise.