Re: Interesting survey
Eduardo G. Moros (moros@castor.wustl.edu)
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:24:30 -0600There *appears* to be transitional forms, that's all. Clear mechanistic
explanations are lacking and wanting. It also depends on what you call
"transitional". According to Darwinism, we should find *not* 10 or 100 or
even a 1000 fossils that resemble evolution. We should find tens or hundreds
of thousands gradually chnafing life forms ............ but there are just not
"enough" *transitional* (?) forms to prove lineage. Each "species" (the
definition of what a species is is currently evolving§) seems to appear fully
developed and highly complex, the explanations for this fact are used as
excuses. Science is not about scientirrific accounts of what may have
happened, but about data and facts that point with a high degree of convincing
evidences (w/o excuses) to a theory that accurately explains the data and
facts may have happened (it does not really explained what actually happened).
So, in affirming trans-speciation with the limited data we now have is a
dis-service (in my opinion) to science as much as affirming that
trans-speciation have not occurred because the bible says so (when it
doesn't).
Salu2
§What is a Species, and What is Not? ERNST MAYR
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/dbsr/Evolut/mayr.htm
> Re: Interesting survey
> Glenn Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
> The idea that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record (both
> sides have cited this one). Yet there are some very good lineages which
> gradually change from one form to another e.g. the fish=amphibian transition.
> glenn