to which Glenn responded:
>Are you suggesting that ribs and legs are the only features
>which can be transitional? Lungs were also needed and the
>record according to Ahlberg and Milner attests to the duplicate
>gill/lung possesion of both the lastest fish and the earliest
>tetrapods. Is this not also a transitional feature; one that
>might be more important than legs? Vertebrates can live
>on land without legs (e.g., snakes), but not without lungs.
Note that Stahl also wrote in this same volume that "Although
several Devonian fishes possessed lungs, *it is not at all clear*
that evolution of these structures was an early event in amphibian
evolution". (pg. 199) She also notes at the beginning of Chapter 6
(The Amphibians: Gaining the Land) that "Paleontologists are *quite
certain* of the relationship between the rhipidistians and the
amphibians even though they have not discovered the animals inter-
mediate between the finned and limbed forms".
Why do I mention this? Read on...
>My complaint was about the logic Johnson used. He
>connected the lack of preadaptation in Coelacanths with the
>possibility that the Rhipidistian fishes (believed to be the
>tetrapod ancestors) might also not show any traits which
>would make it able to live on land. This is, quite simply,
>making up evidence where none exists.
If fault is to be found for Johnson "making up evidence where none
exists", I have to say, he is certainly entitled to. After all,
if evolutionists like Stahl and other paleontologists do this all
the time (and they do), he is merely exercising his legitimate right
to propose his own version of what happened. Are you suggesting
that only imaginative explanations which serve evolutionary pre-
suppositions are to be allowed in a consideration of this process?
Making up evidence where none exists is THE hallmark of evolutionary
paleontology. Period. Let's not ever forget this. We see it every-
where we look, from tabloids to the most esteemed journals. It is
THE defining constant of evolutionary explanation. Without imagination,
evolution would fall in a moment. Evolution is not largely supported by
evidence folks, but by the pronouncement and perpetuation of endless
stories which fill the gaps where evidence is lacking. The problem is,
these stories form the BASIS upon which evolution rests its Mighty
Presumption (that God did not Create). Indeed, Ashy notes:
>One can sympathize with the evolutionist's frustration over
>the creationist's inability to identify the number or specific
>features of the various species which he contends were created by
>fiat. This "weasel room" makes the theory extremely difficult to
>disprove, but being difficult to disprove is different than being
>false. In fact, the theory of evolution has much the same quality.
>Rather than predicting the path along which life would diversify,
>the theory simply offers ad hoc explanations of the fossil record
>as it stands. The theory is so flexible that any pattern of change
>or stability can be accommodated by it. One is limited only by
>one's ability to concoct some selective advantage for poorly known
>animals living in even lesser known environments. Given the
>elasticity of both evolution and creation theories, theological or
>philosophical considerations often play a major role in one's
>choice between them.
Indeed. I would point out that the "ability to concoct" any advantage
is an exercise of imagination, not a foray into evidence.
Providing a critique of imagined scenarios is not only appropriate but
required, and in full measure, to insure that evolutionary imaginations
do not become established orthodoxy which provide a foundation for future
thinking. That is one of the points Phil is attempting to make. He's
arguing for creating a different perspective here folks, and its one that
I think all of us should appreciate. At some point we must ask
ourselves the question: of what value is an edifice which is entirely
built upon one assumption based on another presumption?
I think Stahl, better than others, has to her credit laid bare the basic
assumptions and lack of evidence where they are found wanting. Her work
adds a refreshing breath of honesty where evidence AND imagination are
sorely lacking. "Making up evidence where none exists" is THE major service
provided by many of the world's most reknown evolutionary paleontologists and
others engaged in evolutionary "research". If Phil choses to exercise the
same right, then, you'd better allow it, or else disallow it for all others
as well.
So, what shall it be?
Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE