I am sorry. I did not look up your profile.
What I actually said was that I agree with a position tht looks at forms or types (OF Species"") in the GEOLOGICAL COLumn may be only "of an age" and that modern Creationism presents this position on time.
If you need some explanation of this we can all help out here. Many others here will disagree with this as it does leave open the issue of special creation but I am working on the details of this change in the topic thread "Distinguishing Baramins".
I tried to set out the historical events that justify this view in response to the upside down Bat.
This is probably still a little too advanced:
Since or during the whole c/e flap the domain or programming of Cladistics was created. Many non-creationists insist on this kind of analysis of species. I looked on the web for writings out of the book "Principia Botanica" which I quoted but I *could* find a link to a Bibliography that lISTED many of the author of this books' works but not $this& one that I was using to INTEPRET the field of speciation with (again I raise in detail this subject on the Distinguishing Baraminology Thread) (others here DO disagree with me). This book was missing. In this book the author EXPANDS his method of biogeography to included questions of polyplodiy and cytogenetics and more or less used a creationist position to be critical of cytogeneticists.
Later in this DECADE, THE 60's Morris and Whitcomb published THE GENESIS FLOOD which without splitting hairs is often citing as the book that restarted interest in Creationism especially here in USA...
A Conell genetist published a book within this time frame that attempted to disvalidate the work of Creationism by citing the genetical continuity of small parts of cell division patternings (the chromosomes and the correlation of Sturtevants LINEAR 'map' to this material BUT THESE SCIENTISTS HAVE NOT ANSWERED CROIZAT.
It appears that Leon was using two different kinds of plants of the Genus Euphorbia to indicate which kind was more easily or likely to be read and understood if as a special creation of God in the process of DOING his method. There is a lot of thinking that goes into doing Croizat's stuff so that is a little bit much for this thread as even professionals DID NOT have even a take home lesson on this work in the 80s when I was at Cornell. I made up a class to figure this out. The reason that the lesson is STILL not taught is because creationism is more or less required to get beyond the best understanding of Crozat's work. We , as scientists need not do it, if one is satisifed with the status quo but in the context of creation and evolution resolving it's debate this IS ONE logical way out of the dillema or conundrum I tenetatively referred to as "two" shools of thought. I hope this helps.