Vernon wrote:
> Yes, I can understand that you would view any transition as
> part of a continuum. However, I suggest it is reasonable that
> we lift this particular one out of the wider context and
> treat it as a well-defined sequence
This is procedure is one of the most frustating things about
young-earthers and antievolutionists. They want to isolate any issue and
never look at the broader picture. To do that denies oneself the
context.
>
> But here, again, you are further along the sequence than I
> had in mind Come back a couple of tens of thousands of
> years. The promise of a substantial change then must have
> taken the form of a few lumps and protrusions which can only
> have reduced the creature's prospects of survival.
Not necessarily. Why do you think every 'lump and protrusion' must be
detrimental? That makes no logical sense whatso ever.
> But, in the final resort, what makes your view less an
> article of faith than mine?
Because the observational data is there to support my view. You have to
ignore the observational data. That is why yours is more of a fideism
than mine.
Received on Mon Jun 21 20:10:09 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 21 2004 - 20:10:10 EDT