I am re-sending this because the server bounced it back, saying it was
going to re-send it, but I cannot see that it did. If you got it, then
delete it. Sorry. I've
left it as-is, even though the bit at the end is out of date.
On Sun, 11 Jun 1995 20:35:44 -0400 you wrote:
GM> Evolutionary Transitions pt 1.
***Intro***
Jim Bell has challenged me to critique the treatment of
>fossils by Phillip Johnson and Kurt Wise. He wrote:
>For starters, if you'd like to make the case that Kurt Wise and
>Phil Johnson (to name two) are both wrong on this issue, I would
>like to hear it.
>
GM>This note is the result of that challenge...I want one thing
>clear from the start. My criticisms are not meant to be taken
>personally; they are criticisms of issues and positions. Nor are
>my criticisms designed to "destroy Christianity" or any such
>thing. My deepest hope is that by bringing to light these
>deficiencies in our apologetic, we can together work to make it
>stronger.
Good. Same here! <g>
GM>I will begin with a definition of a transitional form. This
>term is thrown around with much glee on the part of anti-
>evolutionists. It would be useful to know what it means. Then
>we will look at two transitions in the fossil record, the fish to
>amphibian transition and the mesonychid-whale transition. Then
>at the end I will address the issue of strategy that Christians
>ought to pursue in the area of science. References are at the
>tail end...
GM>****Transitional Forms******
>What is a transitional form? Creationist have long demanded
>transitional forms between various groups. The lack of these
>transitional forms are said to be evidence that evolution is
>false. Before we can know if this is true, we must define what
>we mean by a transitional form. To define such a thing, Gish
>(1979, p. 50) says
>"We would predict that new basic types would not appear suddenly
>in the fossil record possessing all of the characteristics that
>are used to define its kind."
>
GM>This is as close as he gets to defining his term.
While Gish does not apparently define "transitional form", it is
apparent what he means, eg:
1. Intermediate stage:
"In four cases-the flying insects, the flying mammals, the flying
reptiles, and the birds-flying creatures have allegedly gradually
evolved from nonflying creatures, each transition requiring millions
of years. Vast numbers of intermediate stages in each case must have
existed. Many thousands of indisputable transitional forms should
fill museum showcases, graphically documenting these transitions."
(Gish D., "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record",
1986, Master Book Publishers, El Cajon, CA, p110)
2. Part way features
"During the eighty-five years slnce publication of Beddard's book, no
better candidate as an intermediate between reptiles and birds than
Archaeopteryx has appeared. Not a single intermediate with part-way
wings or part-way feathers has been discovered." (Gish,
Challenge, p110)
3. Incomplete
"Finally, as we have stated earler, it makes no difference whether the
Cambrian invertebrates did actually all appear at the same time or
whether they appeared sequentially in evolutionary reconstructions,
for wherever or whenever they appeared, they were complete at the very
first, and no transitional forms have ever been found. This is not
only contradictory to evolutionary theory, it is also absolutely
incompatible with the theory. (Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer
Their Critics", 1993, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA,
p126)
4. Not fully formed.
"Each is fully formed at its first appearance. The time span involved
supposedly stretched through hundreds of millions of years. The
number of transitional forms that would have lived and died during the
vast time span required for the evolution of the complex invertebrates
would have been many billions times billions. If evolution is true,
museums should have an immense storehouse of the fossil transitional
forms. Yet, not one has ever been found!" (Gish, Answer, p126)
5. Space within gaps
"The fossil record is powerful, positive evidence for creation, and
every new discovery strengthens the case for creation and exposes
additional difficulties for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory
is, of course, dead, as long as the two huge gaps between
single-celled organisms and the complex invertebrates and between
complex invertebrates and fishes continue to exist. The total failure
to reduce these gaps, let alone close them, in spite of an intense
search by thousands of paleontologists during more than 125 years,
establishes beyond doubt that the required transitional forms will
never be found." (Gish, Answer, p126)
6. Between basic morphological designs
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though
it remains the `official' position of most Western evolutionists.
Smooth intermediates between Bauplne are almost impossible to
construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no
evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like
Archaeopteryx do not count).'48 (S. J. Gould and Niles Eldredge,
"Punctuated Equilibria", Paleobiology 3:147,1977, in Gish, Answer,
p136)
6. The same as used by evolutionists
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but
are abundant between large groups." (S. J. Gould, Discover, May
1981, p. 37, in Gish, Answer, p135)
GM>I glanced
>through Anderson and Coffin and without an index, I could not
>find a definition of the term. Scott Huse (1983) also fails to
>define his term. Parker (1980, p. 89) merely states that "...the
>boundaries between kinds should blur as we look back at their
>fossil history."
There were many more I could have cited for you from Gish's 2 books
alone.
GM>Wise gives the best definition I have been able
>to find. Wise said (Wise, 1994, p. 226-227)
>"They have a structure that stands between the structure of
>their ancestors and that of their descendants. However,
>they are also found in the fossil record as younger than the
>oldest fossils of the ancestral group and older than the
>oldest fossils of the descendent group."
Others that can be inferred are:
1. Tranformations series
"If macroevolution is true, then organisms have made many substantial
transformations in the course of history. The preservation of these
transformations might be expected in the fossil record. Series of
fossil species like the horse series, the elephant series, the camel
series, the mammal-like reptile series, the early birds and early
whales all seem to be strong evidence of evolution."
(Wise K.P., "The Origin of Life's Major Groups", in Moreland J.P. ed.,
"The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p226)
2. Individual stratomorphic intemediates
"Another class of fossil evidence comes in individual stratomorphic
intemediates. These are fossils that stand intermediate between the
group from which they are descendent and the one to which they are
ancestral-both in stratigraphic position and in morphology." (Wise,
p226)
GM>What he fails to define is what is the nature of the gradation
>expected.
I thought he defined it quite well. The nature of gradation expected
is simply evidence of the transformation that allegedly took place, in
the shape of intermediate *structures*:
"..none of the stratomorphic intermediates have intermediate
structures. Although the entire organism is intermediate in
structure, it's the combination of structures that is intermediate,
not the nature of the structures themselves. Each of these organisms
appears to be a fully functional organism full of fully functional
structures. Archaeopteryx, for example, is thought to be intermediate
between reptiles and birds because it has bird structures (e.g,
feathers) and reptile structures (e.g., teeth, forelimb claws). Yet
the teeth, the claws, the feathers and all other known structures of
Archaeopteryx appear to be fully functional. The teeth seem fully
functional as teeth, the claws as claws, and the feathers as any
flight feathers of modern birds. It is merely the combination of
structures that is intermediate, not the structures themselves."
(Wise, p227)
>But later he seems to suggest that there ought to be a smoother
>transitional series if evolution is to be true. He says (Wise,
1994, p. 227)
>"It is merely the combination of structures that is
>intermediate, not the structures themselves. Stephen Jay
>Gold calls the resultant organisms 'mosaic forms' or
>'chimeras.' As such they are really no more intermediate
>than any other member of their group."
No. It is nothing to do with "smoother". It is to do with
*intermediate structures*, ie. half-arm/half-wing. It is the lack of
*nascent* organs:
"A serious problem with this argument for evolution is that whereas
vestigial organs are known, nascent organs are not. If evolution were
true, one would expect to see not just organs "going out" but also
organs "coming in." These new organs would be called nascent organs."
(Wise, pp222-223)
GM>If by transitional series one means that there should be an
>infinite gradation of morphology from one form to another, like
>the morphing done to pictures of politicians in political TV ads,
>then he is using a bad concept of the nature of genealogical
>traits. This is the view that Wise and most non-evolutionary
>creationists suggest.
Maybe not "infinite" but evidence of the series being traversed, not
only in overall form, but also in sub-structures.
This is in fact the view propounded by Darwin:
"the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be
truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is
the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the
theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme
imperfection of the geological record." (Darwin C., "The Origin of
Species", Everyman's Library, 1967, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London,
p292).
GN>That view of heredity is almost that of
>Pythagoras who believed that life began with a blending of male
>and female fluids. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1982, 7, 994.) In
>this note, when I use the term morphing, I am meaning a smooth
>gradation between one form and another like the face of Clinton
>turning into the face of Jimmy Carter or Hillary in a political
>ad. Those types of sequences consist of hundreds of
>intermediates. But this is NOT how transitions occur in the
>fossil record.
Indeed they don't occur! But that is not what Darwinists expected, so
once again the plastic theory changes and it is pretended that there
never was a problem.
GM>Traits are not analog in nature; they are quantized. I have
>blue eyes; my three sons have brown eyes. They do not have
>bluish-brown or brownish blue eyes.
What about bluish-green or greenish-brown? I thought there is a
continuum of colour in eyes.
GM>In the fossil record, horses
>have one toe or three toes. Even today, about 1 in 10,000 horses
>are born with three toes; Julius Caesar was said to have ridden
>on such a horse. (Gold, 1983, p. 177) They don't have 2.75 toes,
>or 1.82345 toes.
So are you saying that there was no gradual change from two to three
toes? Are you advocating saltationism?
>Thus for creationists to insist upon an
>infinitude of forms is using the hereditary knowledge of 500 B.
>C. Surely we can do better than that.
Well you better tell Dawkins:
"To 'tame' chance means to break down the very improbable into less
improbable small components arranged in series. No matter how
improbable it is that an X could have arisen from a Y in a single
step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally
graded intermediates between them. However improbable a large-scale
change may be, smaller changes are less improbable. And provided we
postulate a sufficiently large series of sufficiently finely graded
intermediates, we shall be able to derive anything from anything else"
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin, p317).
GM>So what is a transitional form? I would define it as an
>animal which has some features of each group; not an infinite
>morphing sequence.
This is a straw man. No one ever claimed transitional forms were
"an infinite morphing sequence" (except perhaps Dawkins!). But if they
were nor saltations, they must have been small, successive steps:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Darwin C.,
"The Origin of Species", Everyman's Library, 1967, J.M. Dent & Sons
Ltd, London, p170).
"As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive,
favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden
modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps. Hence the
canon of "Natura non facit saltum," which every fresh addition to our
knowledge tends to confirm, is on this theory intelligible." (Darwin,
p447).
GM>Remember the Goldschmidt toad from Nature, Feb
>2, 1995, p. 398? This toad had eyes on the inside of his mouth
>on the roof of the mouth. He was found living in the wilds of a
>Canadian garden. Regardless of the cause of his deformity, it
>was not a gradual thing which produced this feature. His parents
>did not have the eyes on the lips, and his grandparents did not
>have the eyes where the nostrils are and this great grandparents
>did not have eyes just below where normal toads have their eyes.
>There was no GRADUAL transition to the eyes-in-the-mouth state.
>I believe that this is how most mutational change occurs. Mutate
>the control genes and you get a major change in the morphology of
>one or a set of traits. (see the fish to amphibian transition
>below).
Gould rejects this as both non-Darwinian and non-viable:
"We can well imagine such a non-Darwinian theory of discontinuous
change-profound and abrupt genetic alteration luckily (now and then)
making a new species all at once. Hugo de Vries, the famous Dutch
botanist supported such a theory early in this century. But these
notions seem to present insuperable difficulties. With whom shall
Athena born from Zeus's brow mate? All her relatives are members of
another species...Major disruptions of entire genetic systems do not
produce favored or even viable creatures." (Gould S.J., "The Return
of the Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, Penguin, London,
pp158-159).
GM>Phillip Johnson advocates this morphing view of genetics as
>evidenced by his statement in the fall/winder 1994 Origins
>Research, p. 6. He says,
>"There is no evidence from the fossils of a pattern of
>common ancestors and intermediates connecting them. If neo-
>Darwinism were true, somewhere there should be a universe of
>transitional intermediates, as Darwin said there had to be.
>Where is it?"
Johnson says nothing of "morphing". He says there should be "a
*pattern* of common ancestors and intermediates connecting them".
GM>Darwin, it is true believed that gradualism in the morphing
>sense was the way evolution worked.
I doubt even Darwin believed it was as gradual as "morphing". This is
your own straw man, which you can easily knock down, Glenn. <g>
GM>But Darwin did not have
>modern genetic and developmental knowledge. To always quote
>Darwin as the authority on how change must occur is to hold
>evolution to its most primitive form. It does not even attack
>the view held by most scientists today.
Is it true that modern evolutionists, with "modern genetic and
developmental knowledge" really differ from Darwin? Dawkins differs
from your assessment:
"From Darwin onwards evolutionists have realized that, if we arrange
all our available fossils in chronological order, they do not form a
smooth sequence of scarcely perceptible change. We can, to be sure,
discern long-term trends of change - legs get progressively longer,
skulls get progressively more bulbous, and so on - but the trends as
seen in the fossil record are usually jerky, not smooth. Darwin, and
most others following him, have assumed that this is mainly because
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the fossil record is imperfect. Darwin's view was that a complete
fossil record, if only we had one, would show gentle rather than jerky
change. But since fossilization is such a chancy business, and
finding such fossils as there are is scarcely less chancy, it is as
though we had a cine film with most of the frames missing. We can, to
be sure, see movement of a kind when we project our film of fossils,
but it is more jerky than Charlie Chaplin, for even the oldest and
scratchiest Charlie Chaplin film hasn't completely lost nine-tenths of
its frames." (Dawkins, p229)
"Macromutations - mutations of large effect - undoubtedly occur. What
is at issue is not whether they occur but whether they play a role in
evolution; whether, in other words, they are incorporated into the
gene pool of a species, or whether, on the contrary, they are always
eliminated by natural selection.... So, macromutations do happen.
But do they play a role in evolution? People called saltationists
believe that macromutations are a means by which major jumps in
evolution could take place in a single gcncration. Richard
Goldschmidt...was a true saltationist. If saltationism were true,
apparent 'gaps' in the fossil record needn't be gaps at all...There
are very good reasons for rejecting all such saltationist theories of
evolution. One rather boring reason is that if a new species really
did arise in a single mutational step, members of the new species
might have a hard time finding mates. (Dawkins, p230-231)
GM>Secondly, just because
>Darwin believed it does not make it standard dogma today. So the
>constant demand for a series of morphing forms is trying to
>attack a view held more than 100 years ago and is not what our
>children are taught in college. Our use of these views makes us
>look outdated and risks our children's trust.
I note you do not provide any quotes to get you over this major hump
in your argument, Glenn. I suggest that this is your own
interpretation and not what the majority of Neo-Darwinists believe.
GM>One final thing before looking at the lineages, Christians
>often criticize the idea that small changes could lead to large
>morphological change. Phillip Johnson stated, (Origins Research,
>Fall/Winter 1994, p. 7)
>"These scientists understand that a theory which is valid only at
>the small scale has been recklessly extrapolated into a general
>theory of creation, in order to fill the explanatory gap that
>would otherwise exist. The theory has to be extrapolated.
>Otherwise we wouldn't have a theory at all."
Agreed.
GM>This criticism if applied to other sciences would be equally
>valid. Johnson should criticize astronomy, which is extrapolated
>from small observed changes. No one has ever seen a star form,
>the sun orbit the galaxy or even Pluto make a complete orbit.
>Continental drift falls under the same gun as does much of
>geology. No one saw the continents connected. Observed trends
>and fossil evidence are extrapolated. No one was around to see
>that it takes a long time to deposit the world's sedimentary
>beds. That idea is just an extrapolation of presently observed
>trends. If extrapolation was not allowable in science then much
>would have to be erased from our text books. Is this what
>Christians want to accomplish - the destruction of all science?
The real point is the differing degree of complexity between
biological and non-biological sciences:
"Biology is the study complicated things...physics is the study of
simple things..." (Dawkins, p1).
It is relatively safe to extrapolate in astronomy and geology because
the processes involved are relatively simple compared with biology.
>*****Fish to Amphibian*****
>
GM>On page 76-77 Johnson talks about the Fish to Amphibian
>transition. I am not going to quote any of this but Johnson
>gives one quote from Stahl that says that none of the known fish
>is believed to be on the direct line of amphibians. That can
>probably be said of any transition since these animal bones are
>not found with signs that say "Here lies your Great-Grandfish".
>Johnson then proceeds to talk about the Coelacanth, a living
>representative of the Crossopterygians. He then points out that
>a study of the internal organs of this creature do not show pre-
>adaptation for land. Why should it? It lives in the deepest part
>of the ocean and is in a distinct order of the subclass
>Crossopterygia. (Beerbower, 1968, p.447) This doesn't sound like
>a big deal to most laymen. Look up what an order is. Bats are
>in a different order from primates. Thus the fact that the
>coelacanth is a different order than the crossopterygian should
>have been brought out for the layperson to read and understand
>its significance. If I say, I found a bat and a study of his
>internal organs show no pre-adaptation to doing mathematics, or
>walking upright or having an opposable thumb, it is meaningless.
>The bat has nothing to do with our proposed ancestry! Likewise
>to suggest that the coelacanth shows no pre-adaptation for life
>on land is equally meaningless. (And before someone says "That is
>what the evolutionist is doing," it is equally wrong for them.)
>Thus Johnson is not giving the reader, who is very likely to be a
>layperson untrained in the field, enough data to be able to
>decide for himself.
Sorry Glenn. Darwinists themselves expected the Coelacanth to support
there theory. It didn't and now you pretend it didn't matter!
GM>On a positive note concerning the evidence of a transition
>between fish and amphibian, I go to the Encyclopaedia Britannica,
>1982, vol 1. Amphibia, p. 794. They note that the
>crossopterygians had nasal passages which enabled it to breathe
>air with its mouth closed. This is a fish with a feature which is
>"characteristic of all terrestrial vertebrates." Sounds pretty
>transitional to me. It also had a working lung. (Is this a
>transitional feature?) The teeth of the fish had infolding of
>the enamel surface. Guess what, the earliest amphibians had this
>trait also. One of the transitional facts is that the earliest
>amphibians also had gills as well as lungs. A trait in common
>with the precursor fish.
This could be a transitional form, or it could be a "curious mosaic"
(like the platypus). You would need to supply a better set of
intermendiaries from fish to the earliest amphibian, and in particular
documenting the crucial fin-to-feet transition.
GM>Coates and Clack state,
>"Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal
>gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic
>respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not
>fully terrestrial. The discovery provides information on
>the sequence of acquisition of tetrapod characters, and
>supports previous suggestions that such characters as legs
>with digits evolved first for use in water."~M. I. Coates
> and J. A. Clack, "Fish-like Gills and Breathing in the
>Earliest Known Tetrapod,"Nature, 352, July 18, 1991, p. 234.
I have no information on this. I presume that Acanthostega was an
amphibian? It is a bit tentative "seems to have...implying...
suggestions". What hard evidence is there exactly?
GM>What is interesting is that the second oldest known
>amphibian, found in Pennsylvania, had lost the gills and only had
>lungs. This was 5-10 million years after the earliest known
>amphibian.(Rensberger, 1994). His legs were also more muscular.
Again, what hard evidence is there that this ever had gills in order
to lose them?
GM>The best recent overview of the fish-amphibian transition is
>found in Ahlberg and Milner, 1994. The skulls of the
>Panderichthyidae are so much like those of the earliest
>amphibians they were first included in that group until more
>complete skeletal material was found which showed that these were
>still lobe-finned fish. Ahlberg and Milner state (p. 508)
>
>"Indeed one panderichthyid fragment, the holotype skull
>roof of Elpistostege, was initially described as a tetrapod,
>while two other supposed panderichthyids have recently
>proved to be Devonian tetrapods."
There is no argument that fish and amphibia have similarities. The
question is, is this due to common ancestry or common design, or both?
GM>These kinds of mis-identifications should be expected in a truly
>gradualistic transition. Gradualism makes it difficult to draw a
>line. Remember Parker's definition above? However, I am sure
>that someone will view this as a case of those stupid
>paleontologists, can't tell a fish from a frog. But the
>transitional features are so mixed up together in these animals
>that "Both Ichthyostega and Acanthostega retain true tail fins
>with fin rays." (Ahlberg and Milner, p. 510) This sounds like a
>tetrapod with a fish tail and sounds very transitional.
Mixed up transitional features is not good enough to support common
ancestry. First you must postulate a clear line of transition that
fits all the facts. Second you must provide a mechanism to effect the
changes. Third you must plausibly answer the crucial difficulties.
GM>Now, none of the apologetical books I consulted mentioned
>these transitional traits. Anderson and Coffin (1977, p. 51)
>state,
>"The first amphibian to appear in the fossil record is
>Ichthyostega. Its appearance in the Devonian period in Greenland
>is abrupt and without transitional forms."
Is this not now true? I find it difficult to follow your argument. You
don't exactly say what was the names of the oldest and second oldest
amphibians.
>Gish, (1979, p. 78-79) states,
>"There is a tremendous gap, however, between the crossopterygians
>and the ichtyostegids , a gap that would have spanned many
>millions of years during which innumerable transitional forms
>should reveal a slow gradual change of the pectoral and pelvic
>fins of the crossopterygian fish into the feet and legs of the
>amphibian, along with the loss of other fins, and the
>accomplishment of other transformations required for adaptation
>to a terrestrial habitat."
Agreed.
>Compare Gish's desire for transitional loss of fins with the
>following from Ahlberg and Milner (1994, p. 508),
>
>"The fundamental importance of panderichthyids lies in the
>combination of characters they possess. Unlike osteolepiforms,
>panderichthyids actually look like early tetrapods with paired
>fins: They have the same superficially crocodile-like skulls
>with dorsally placed orbits, straight tails and slightly
>flattened bodies WITHOUT DORSAL OR ANAL FINS. Like tetrapods,
>but unlike all other fishes, they also have frontal bones in the
>skull roof."[emphasis mine-grm]
>Here we have a fish which HAS lost two of its fins! and looks
>much like a tetrapod.
And what about Gish's request for evidence of "slow gradual change of
the pectoral and pelvic fins of the crossopterygian fish into the feet
and legs of the amphibian"?
GM>This transition has fish with tetrapod skulls, lungs and
>gills, fin loss, and nasal passages and teeth similar to the
>earliest tetrapods. The earliest tetrapods had lungs and gills,
>teeth and skulls like the fish, and they had a retained tail fin.
>The body morphology was similar.
This still assumes what it is trying to prove, namely that it *was* a
"transition". There is no denying that amphibians have similarities to
fish. But all these are fullym formed features. There are no
intermediate structures. The clincher would be half-fin/half-foot
transitional structure.
GM>I would respectfully contend that our apologetical books are
>not preparing our college bound youth for what they will face.
There is always a lag in reporting these things. My daughter's
university Biology textbook tells a similar story that the
"apologetical books" respond to:
"Today, the fleshy-finned fishes (subclass Sarcopterygii) are
represcnted by two groups, the lungfishes and only one species of
''lobe-finned" fish. There are three genera of lungfishes-one each in
Australia, Africa, and South America-that regularly brcathe air to
supplement gas exchange in their gills. The single species of
lobe-linned fish is the coelocanth (fig. 28.6) long thought to bc
extinct but now known to exist off the southeast coast ol Africa. The
coelocanth does not have lungs.
The fleshy-finned fishes are of interest because they are thought to
have been ancestral to the amphibians. Most likely they could breathe
air while they crawled clumsily on stumpy fins from pond to pond
during the Devonian Period, a time of altcrnating floods and droughts.
Land plants and insects had evolved before land vertebrates, so there
was an excellent food supply available on land for any animal that
could remain ashore long enough to utilize it. Under these
conditions, a selective pressure obviously favored those animals that
developed land- dwelling abilities. Animals able to spend more time
on land could avoid more vigorous competition in the water. Figure
28.6 compares the features of an ancestral fleshy-finned fish to those
of the first amphibian and a coelocanth. (Mader S., "Biology", 3rd
Ed., 1990, Wm. C. Brown, Indiana, pp417-420)
"Improved locomotion on land and other adaptations for terrestrial
life led to a diversification of amphibians (class Amphibia, 2,500
species) during the Carboniferous Period (table 28.1), now known as
the Age of Amphibians. Many of these became extinct; amphibians are
mainly represented today by newts and salamanders, frogs (fig. 28.7),
and toads. These animals are not fully adapted to life on land. They
have small, relatively inefficient lungs, and most of them also depend
on gas exchange through the skin....Some time before the Permian
Period, amphibians probably related to Seymouria (fig. 28.8) gave
rise to the reptiles. Reptiles were to become the dominant organisms
on earth during the next geological era." (Mader, p421)
>All it takes for them to find these things out is a little work
>and curiosity. When they learn of all this (and I am just an
>amateur) they will begin to question what we taught them. It is
>only a short step to questioning the Gospel itself.
I agree that Christian students should not be made to chose between
the Gospel and evolution. And I agree that facts should not be
ignored. But I also believe that much of what passes for evolution is
simply atheistic naturalism in drag. And evolution itself ignores
critical difficulties. How exactly does major biological change occur
without real design by a Blind Watchmaker process? How can complex
transitions occur that are fully functional and "by the accumulation
of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual
possessor" (Darwin, p437), eg. the reptilian jawbones becoming
mammalian ear bones?
It may be that the simple creationist model is wrong and must be
modified, as the original Darwinian model has been. It may be that
there are some transitional forms. But this is a long way short of
conceding that Darwinism is "fact". Many if not most of these
transitions can be accommodated under a Progressive Creation model.
I believe that a robust fully theistic science is needed to develop a
truly Biblical approach to nature if we are to follow Paul's
exhortation:
"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world
does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On
the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We
demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against
the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it
obedient to Christ." (2Cor 10:3-6)
And the means to do this is not to be "looking only on the surface of
things" (2Cor 10:7).
>Part II: the whale transition.
I have answered most of this, but I have not finished it. Now I must
go into hospital. Pray for me!
God bless. And thanks for your good arguments Glenn. I'll make a
Progressive Creationist of you yet! <g>
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------