Articles by Eric Magnusson
THE ARGUMENT about the most plausible explanation for the origin of plants and animals on this planet is difficult to win. The idea of Creation can receive only indirect support from scientific evidence, because the creative acts were supernatural events and therefore lie outside the realm of science. . .
IN PART one of this series, it was pointed out that those who question the evolutionary account use the same tree figure to demonstrate the classification of plants and animals as evolutionists do. However, they call it a "taxonomic tree" rather than a "phylogenetic tree" and use it for displaying similarities, but not for demonstrating lines of development. . .
PEOPLE COMMITTED to the evolutionary explanation of the history of life on earth often compare the evolution of living things to the growth of a tree. Originally there is only one shoot; the first twigs produced from it correspond to the initial divergence of two or more species from the single form of life originally present on the earth. . .
THE idea of a spontaneous origin of living cells was not much discussed before about 1940, although it was early seen to be a necessity for a thorough going naturalistic view of life. Russian scientists, especially A. I. Oparin, were active in the field in earlier years, 1 but the balance of power in this particular field of research would now appear to have swung to the West. . .
"To be harmless, mutations must also be trivial; but to be trivial they must renounce evolutionary importance."