On Mon, 12 Jun 1995 08:48:36 -0500 (CDT) you wrote:
BD>I think the following quote found cited in a recent post of Steve
is a
>breathtakingly fine example of ... I know not exactly what: Stareing
>straight in the face of a near impossibility and solemnly declaring that
>it must be so???
I am glad someone else feels the same way. Gould squareky faces up
to the problem and ... just hand waves it away:
"The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals
only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in
mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back
of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil"bones of the mammalian ear are
descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be
accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely
in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two
transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like
reptiles) with a double jaw joint-one composed of the old quadrate and
articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of
the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals)."
(Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", 1977, Pelican, p258)
Apart from the fact that this is not entirely true - the above bones
in the mammal-like reptiles were fully functional and there is no
evidence of the actual transition in progress. But Gould just waves
aside the creationists question. "How could such a transition be
accomplished?" on Darwinian principles? Gould obviously does not know.
BD>It is one thing for us not to know how something
>happened, that might possibly have happened; it is another to *not even
>be able to imagine* how something might have happened. I mean of course,
>imagine in detail, not just vaguely imagine.
Yes. We cannot imagine how water can instantly become wine, do we
conclude it was super-natural. If we cannot imagine how jaw-bones can
become an ear *in detail* then creationists are quite entitled to
believe that if it did happen (which is not yet certain) then it was
due to a super-natural cause.
BD>Note too the difference
>here between this example and the other examples along the same line that
>we creationists are fond of. How complex organs might arise gradually is
>a big problem. How biologically necessary organs might gradually change
>into some whole new function while the organism survives this change,
>while indeed the organism gains a survival advantage at every step along
>the way (though in this case it would appear to be losing its ability to
>eat), is an important variation on the theme.
Yes. How exactly could this happen? Perhaps Glenn could do a
mathematic model of it? The point is that on Darwinian principles it
must be due to mutation + natural selection. How developing a second
set of jawbones and the old set becoming ears can be a selective
advantage at every step along the way, is beyond my imagination.
I note that these advanced designs are all extinct and the ordinary
reptiles with the old design are still around!
BD>Sorry evolutionist dudes. Your case is far from made, made
>plausible, made even imaginable.
This is my problem. I cannot even imagine how most of these Darwinian
transitions could be accomplished with only mutation + natural
selection driving it.
SJ>No problem? A popular school textbook gives an imaginative account
>of this evolution of vertebrate ear ossicles and inner ear. It
>ends:
>'Of course, there are numerous unresolved questions about this story;
>for example, how did the mammal-like reptiles hear, and chew, while
>these fantastic changes were taking place? But despite such
>functional problems there is little doubt that it happened."
>(Pitman M., "Adam and Evolution", 1984, Rider & Co., London,
>pp204-206).
Darwin is alive and well. (Like Elvis) <g>
God bless.
Stephen