Re: Evolution: A few questions

Vernon
When are you going to answer my question on the age of the earth?

It is very kindergarten to ignore questions

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Cc: <glennmorton@entouch.net>; <jason_r@www.wushuathletic.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions

> Dave,
>
> Thanks for your informative posting. Just two points:
>
> 1) Clearly, you know far more about the structure and behaviour of aquatic
> creatures than I. However, one hardly needs to be an expert to appreciate
> that a fish developing lumps and protrusions - where previously there were
> none - must experience greater drag and a corresponding reduced mobility.
> That was the basis of the argument put to Glenn. Now you come along with
an
> illustration of the life cycle of a typical amphibian. But what is surely
> most relevant - and missing - is a comparison of predation rates for the
> different stages of the cycle.
>
> 2) You begin your opening paragraph with the words, "You are again
> illustrating that you can find excuses for believing the dogma to which
you
> are committed, but not at all good at recognizing the assumptions on which
> your claims rest." Actually, I'm still waiting for some courageous
'Goliath'
> in this forum to explain why I should regard as completely insignificant
the
> fact that the opening verse of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. Genesis 1:1)
is,
> without doubt, the most remarkable combination of words ever written.
>
> Could it be that you are that man, Dave?
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> Cc: <glennmorton@entouch.net>; <jason_r@www.wushuathletic.com>;
> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 4:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions
>
>
> >
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:18:55 +0100 "Vernon Jenkins"
> > <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
> > > Hi, Dave,
> > >
> > > Thank you for this interesting illustration. However, just a few
> > > points:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) Your reference to 'down time' is hardly relevant to the
> > > matter under
> > > discussion, for I am not claiming that fins cease to function while
> > > legs
> > > develop, but simply that they must lose their effectiveness because
> > > of the
> > > hydro-dynamic impediments (eg swellings and protrusions) that must
> > > herald
> > > the presumed changes.
> > >
> > Vernon,
> > You are again illustrating that you can find excuses for believing the
> > dogma to which you are committed, but not at all good at recognizing the
> > assumptions on which your claims rest. Here you assume that fins are
> > ideally structured for their purpose, which purpose remains constant
> > through change. However, fins function within constraints, for none are
> > ideal for all finny functions. Indeed, pectoral and pelvic appendages
are
> > not what primarily drive fish through the water. Greatly expanded
> > pectoral fins are essential for the flying fish, of course, but for the
> > most part fins are used for changing direction. There is no reason to
> > assume that this obvious function of fins will continue to be the
> > function of developing limbs. There is also no need to assume that fins
> > are necessary for efficient swimming, since sea snakes swim very well,
> > thank you, without anything like fins. What is needed to support your
> > claims is totally specious.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) What you have written brings back memories of Haeckel's
> > > infamous
> > > embryos and the concept of recapitulation. Clearly, all that is in
> > > evidence
> > > here is an inbuilt programme of development that takes us from a
> > > fish-like
> > > form to frog in a relatively brief span of time. The suggested
> > > extrapolation
> > > is, I believe, invalid.
> > >
> > Where did you get the idea that I wrote about recapitulation? All I
> > claimed to illustrate was a change from an aquatic pollywog to an adult
> > frog without loss of function at any stage. I contrasted this process
> > with the need to pause activity for a general reorganization in the
> > insect pupa. I see no way that a creature could survive if a quasi-pupal
> > form were the adult. This is clearly anti-Haeckel. My argument is
> > analogical. Let me restate it simply. If an aquatic pollywog can
> > transform into a terrestrial frog (a toad makes the point more strongly)
> > without hiccups, aquatic creatures could evolve into other forms,
> > including terrestrial ones, without hitting road blocks. Since we have
> > numerous fossils showing sequential development, and since such
> > development can proceed smoothly, your argument is silly and misguided.
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) I am intrigued by your closing paragraph. You question: why
> > > would
> > > God have to work out a series of intermediate creatures leading up
> > > to the
> > > current forms? As a TE (please correct me if I am wrong) you believe
> > > that
> > > man has appeared on the world scene by a divinely-ordained process
> > > of
> > > evolution. Presumably, with this ultimate end in view, He either
> > > front-loaded all the necessary information for such an outcome into
> > > the
> > > first living cell, or otherwise constantly maintains a controlling
> > > hand on
> > > all that transpires. This being so, I can surely put the same
> > > question to
> > > you: why would God have to work out a series of intermediate
> > > creatures
> > > leading up to the current forms? Why all the carnage over a vast
> > > period of
> > > time? Is our God incapable of creating all living forms, together
> > > with those
> > > represented in the fossil record, simultaneously, in one mighty
> > > operation?
> > > In the Scriptures, God has revealed what actually happened way back.
> > > He can
> > > hardly be held responsible for the errors of those who have chosen
> > > to
> > >
> > In this paragraph you assume that all information had to be
> > "front-loaded." In the biological realm, this is nonsense. New
> > information arises, as "bivalve" noted in this string on the 18th, if
> > only through position effects. But there are other possibilities as
well.
> >
> > To look at matters more broadly, can natural processes produce life? I
> > don't know. It may be that original life had to be introduced
> > miraculously. But I would not be surprised if we found that special
> > conditions give rise to entities that could absorb nutrients, maintain
> > homeostasis and reproduce--if we are able to recognize the entities as
> > simple life forms, for they would certainly be different from what we
> > find currently. Recent studies in the Sargasso Sea indicate that we have
> > grave problems recognizing some contemporary life forms.
> >
> > Then you trot out the silly claim that "nature red in tooth and claw"
> > cannot be the work of God. Think for a couple seconds on what the world
> > would be like without death. Nearly a century ago we killed off all the
> > large predators on the Kaibab Plateau north of Grand Canyon. In a few
> > years, all the vegetation that deer could reach was gone, eaten, and all
> > the deer were starving. Death is a necessary part of this world (but
just
> > try to design a world without death). Which death is better: slow
> > starvation with the destruction of the ecosystem, or a quick bite by a
> > predator? It's easy to oppose death because a partly eaten carcass is
not
> > a pretty sight. But it is a very silly argument.
> >
> > Vernon, I wish you had given evidence in this post that you had thought
> > something through before setting it down. Unfortunately, you have merely
> > parroted irrelevancies, items known to excite prejudices, and similar
> > drivel. If you are going to respond, please do better.
> > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vernon
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 23 02:59:56 2004