We are talking about organisms that MUST have evolved at a rate of growth and survival that is greater than the organisms that became extinct. That means that those organisms had to experience birth, growth, and allelic change on the same level as the ones that became extinct with the rate of evolution from one type of organism into another at a greater rate than that which killed off those nature did not 'select'. Otherwise, life on earth would have become entirely extinct thousands of years ago.
So in other words, you are saying that the rate of extinction has to be compensated for by the creation of new ones? Or do I get that wrong? As far as I know, scientists agree that evolution isn't constant and can speed up and slow down. Also keep in mind that humans are drastically influencing nature on this planet. To be honest, I would find it surprising that the amount of new species towards the one getting extinct would even be possible seen how many habitats we destroy (and we are equally responsible for killing certain species). In other cases, we prevent the natural proces by breeding dogs for instance. In our own case: we prevent the 'weak' from dying.
Secondly, if the neo-Darwinians claim a list of organisms that have changed on only the species level(minor changes) then they are cheating. My prediction here is that that is exactly what some of them will do.
Why is that cheating? On what level would you want these examples to be? I honestly do not think you can evolve on any other level. If you evolve on a higher level, wouldn't that destroy the idea of common descent?
We say that this is because the world is degenerating and not evolving. From an original perfection that God made, the world has, since the fall of man in sin been degenerating and extinction is one of the hallmarks of that eternal truth.
Of course there is a big difference between claiming that and actually knowing it or proving the correlation between degeneration and sin.
But let the critics call Dr. Sanford 'ignorant' or unqualified to speak on this subject as they have suggested that I am.
Don't get me wrong. I get that Dr. Sandford accomplished many things in his life and I respect him for that. However I do not think his book is one of those accomplishments.