On Fri 09 Jun 1995 12:36 CT you wrote:
>Jim Bell wrote:
>"You have asserted "there are thousands of examples of gradual change in the
>fossil record.' You then leap to the conclusion of large scale change (major
>transitions)."
>
>No. That is why I cited the Whale sequence. Are you trying to say that the
>Whale transition is not a major (or would not be a major) transition from one
>group to another? Most creationists and evolutionists agree that it is a
>major change of morphology. It is attested to by a fairly complete sequence
>of fossils each only a small step from the previous one. This is not leaping
>from bird beak changes to Land-to-marine morphologies.
>
>
>I wrote:
><<I mentioned the footed ness of the whale transtion. Does that in your view
>constitute a transtion? If not why not?>>
>
>Jim Responded
>
>"Because it assumes connection (the Whale TRANSTION... When did you stop
>beating your wife, Glenn?), when there are strong reasons to doubt that very
>thing."
>
>O.K. If you want to be that picky. Does the whale {series, fossils,
>skeletons, mineralize-calcium carbonate endoskeletons, thingies, do-bobs, dead
>matter, or bvskdhfishdkfhj} (take your pick!!!!) constitute a valid
>transition???If not, why not? I do not know how many ways I can ask that
>question further.
>
>You quoted Johnson:
>"{T}he problems {for whale evoluton} are immense. WHales have all sorts of
>complex equipment to permit deep diving, underwater communication by sound
>waves, and even to allow the young to suckle without taking in sea water.
>Step by step adaptive development of each one of these features presents the
>same problem discussed in connection with wings and eyes... Even the vestigial
>legs present problems. By what Darwinian process di useful limbs wither away
>to vestigial proportions, and at what stage in the transformation from rodent
>to sea monster did this occur? Did rodent forelimbs transform themselves by
>gradual adaptive states into whale flippers? We hear nothing of the
>difficulties because to Darwinists unsolvable problems are not important." P.
>86-87"
>
>The first place, that Johnson is wrong, is that whales did not evolve from
>rodents, they evolved from Mesochynids.
And what did "Mesochynids" have as their common mammalian ancestor?
>They are very, very different.
>Secondly, useful legs did not go away by a Darwinian process. Useless legs
>went away by a Darwinian process. An animal which must swim to catch food is
>less able to do it with those useles-in-the-water legs. Ah, but fins. That
>is another matter. So, I have already given you two places Johnson is wrong.
This is just hand-waving. What Darwinian process will reduce a limb
down to the point where it not only dissappears outside the organism.
but inside it as well?
And is there are real eveidence that proto-whales with legs and those
without legs could not both easily get as much as they could eat? And
how does having a full (or slightly less than full) belly, affect
the proto-whale's reproductive success.
And this whole Mesonychid - Ambulocetus - Rodhocetus - Prozeuglodon
transition took only 15 million years "(55 million years ago...40
million years ago)" (Zimmer C., "Back to the Sea", Discover, January
1995, p83). What Darwinian mechanism can work that fast?
I like the confession by discoverer of these alleged whale
ancestors, Philip Gingerich, "We were making it up before...Now we
don't have to." (Zimmer, p84)
GM>Your quotation from Johnson inadvertently answered one of my
>questions. How many fossils do you beleive are necessary to prove a
>transition. The answer Johnson is giving is boiled down to its
>essence. "Just one more." From this, I already know that nothing I
>say will be sufficient for you. You can't give me even the slightest
>idea of what sort of data you would consider disproving Wise and
>Johnson. Since you apparently don't know what will convince you,
>then I certainly don't know and can't go looking for it.
Sorry we are such a bunch of skeptics, Glenn. <g> But it really is a
handicap us not believing in evolution to prove evolution! However,
this might help you "go looking for it":
"To show that any two species of organism are related in an
evolutionary sense, to show for example that one species A, is
ancestral to B, ie A->B or that both species have descended from a
common ancestral source, ie A<->B, it is necessary to satisfy one of
the following conditions. Either one, to find a 'perfect' sequence of
fully functional intermediate forms I1, I2, I3 leading unambiguously
from one species to another, ie A->I1->I2->I3->B, or...or two, to
reconstruct hypothetically in great detail the exact sequence of
events which led from A to B or from a common ancestor to A and B,
including thoroughly convincing reconstructions of intermediate forms
and a rigorous and detailed explanation of how and why each stage in
the transformation came about." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis",1985, Burnett Books, pp55-56)
Taking Denton's lead, since I assume you don't have "a perfect
sequence" from "Mesonychid" to "Prozeuglodon", then I would like you
to do the next best thing and "reconstruct hypothetically in great
detail the exact sequence of events which led from A ("Mesonychid") to
B ("Prozeuglodon")...including thoroughly convincing reconstructions
of intermediate forms and a rigorous and detailed explanation of how
and why each stage in the transformation came about.
GM>And how do you explain the data? You don't seem to be able to come
>forth with any explanation of why these particular fossils are found
>in precisely the order, location and morphology that they are found
>in.
Wise gives several:
"The frequency seems intuitively too low for evolutionary theory. The
very low frequency of stratomorphic intermediates may be nothing more
than the low percentage of mosaic forms that happen to fall in the
correct stratigraphic position by chance-perhaps because of random
introduction of species by a Creator or the somewhat randomized burial
of organisms in a global deluge...Just as the more general order may
be due to a pattern of a Creator's introduction or of the advance of a
global flood, these few stratomorphic intermediates may be explainable
in the same way. If, for example, the general order of the fossil
record is due to introduction of organisms, then one might
occasionally expect stratomorphic intermediates to have been created
in the sequence between the two groups. Likewise, on an earth that is
zoned biologically, fully functional, structurally intermediate
organisms are likely to be geographicalIy located between the two
groups they lie between structurally. An advancing global flood would
then tend to land structural intermediates between the other two
groups in the fossil record. Thus, whereas the mosaic nature of
claimed "transitional forms" presents a challenge to evolutionary
theory, that and the existence of stratomorphic intermediates are
consistent with progressive creation and global deluge theories"
(Wise K.P., "The Origin of Life's Major Groups", in Moreland J.P.
ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois,
p228)
GM>Science does not work by being nihilistic always tearing down
>but never building up. Only we christians work that way and it is
>truly sad to see Christians with lots of intelligence and smarts
>sitting on the fence always throwing rocks at the nearest scientific
>theory or data. But they don't have the guts, faith in God or
>whatever, to attempt the very difficult work of building an actual
>explanation which both fits the observational data and fits within
>the metaphysical framework we prefer to have. Nah, we just want to
>throw stones.That is a whole lot easier and no one can prove me wrong
>that way.
Glenn, if you propose a scientific theory it is up to you to support
it against all-comers. It's got nothing to do with unbelievers in
Darwinism being "nihilistic". Darwinism took my taxpayers money and
compulsorily forced my children to be taught its half-baked theories,
if they wanted to do science. It's not just me who thought it was
half-baked. The kids in my daughter's class who weren't even
Christians thought it was half-baked too, when the Darwinist
enthusiast they had for a teacher tried to "evangelise" them. They
just laughed at her just-so stories.
Since I am paying the bills, as a consumer, I have a right to know if
evolution is based on facts or is it just a philosophy. If Darwinism
cannot support its main claims, then I conclude it is just a
philosophy. But then I want to know why should Darwinist's philosophy
have a monopoly? Why cannot my Progressive Creationist philosophy
(which equally accounts for the facts) have at least equal time?
God bless.
Stephen