And I'm saying: How is that any different that the evolutionist who uses
the non-existant data for the alleged transition of Rhipidistian ancestors to
land dwelling creatures? If evolutoionists can allege, as they often do, that
land-dwellers arose from some hypothetical ancestor from a lineage which has
a dead-end -- how can one take to task those who care to point out that we
have no case for evolution? The veracity of evolution MUST rest with
evidence, not speculation. If we connect all the evidence with "experts
agree that" and
"it is strongly believed that" and etc. etc., what we have is a series of
evidence connected by threads of speculation. So big deal. My five year old
can do that. Anyone can. The point is, SPECULATION IS NOT COMPELLING!!
If a theory rests entirely on this pattern of linking evidence with speculation,
then indeed the theory is NOT advanced. Such is the case with evolution.
GR Morton also wrote:
>I really do not see evolution depending on the "just-so-stories" (as they
>have been called) as much as non-evolutionists want to believe.
Wait a minute here. This isn't something that non-evolutionists "want to
believe". And, I am sorry that you can't see it. You need to train yourself
to look for it, because it is quite evident in countless volumes of evolu-
tionary literature. Conditional statements (or, statements of speculation)
are found almost everywhere. That you don't *see* this can be easily
remedied by simply looking for it whenever you read evolutionary literature.
Look for words and phrases such as "is thought to be", "most likely
occurred", "is
believed to be", etc. etc. etc. These terms are the means by which evidence
is linked in evolutionary scenarios.
GR Morton added:
> In evolution, the actual intermediate species may not be observed.
But the similarities and changes between the specimens found in the
fossil record behave as if there were intermediate species. Why is it
reasonable to watch behavior in a particle accelerator and deduce quarks
etc but not to deduce by the same methodology, the existence of species
we are unaware of? Why is the just-so-story O.K. in physics but not in
paleontology?<
Excellent question. There are several good reasons why I hope you'll do
some serious reconsidering here. Perhaps most important is the reason that
adherence to a single notion causes one to become, in time, unable to
perceive other
possiblities. It's not uncommon to suggest, as you have, that the
"similarities and changes...behave as if there were intermediate species".
The problem is, what if this approach leads you down the wrong path (as it
has done to many)?
Consider the comment of Broad and Wade (in Betrayers of the Truth):
"The human mind has a well known capacity for retaining political or
religious beliefs well beyond the point at which reason suggests they should
be modified or abandoned. The claim of science is that it...rests
demonstrably upon reason alone. ...
Some of the non-rational elements which govern the scientific process, such
as intuition, imagination, or attachment to particular theories, are ones
that most working scientists readily acknowledge. But others, such as
rhetoric and propaganda, are denied any official role in science by
scientific ideology, despite the fact they can play major, sometimes
decisive roles in the acceptance or rejection of hypotheses"
(pg. 140-141).
The dark side of this is that legitimate evidence which contradicts the
established theory may be thrown out or treated as an anomaly or even
covered up.
Put another way: As long as we continue to think there is a "missing link"
for any major group -- we will continue to find candidates (whenever
possible). The sad part is, what if there never WERE any such candidates?
The evidence (or lack of it) indicates that this is very likely. There are
so few candidates between the major groups as it is that it's become a major
embarassment. I would think that reading Stahl would be cause to recognize
this. You say "the similarities and changes between the specimens found in
the fossil record behave as if there were intermediate species". No they
don't. They don't *behave* that way. That *behavior* is simply a construct
of the way you have been trained to look at the evidence. You've been
hornswaggled. Because now, you simply CAN'T look at the evidence any other
way. You've bought into the notion that the evidence suggests the theory,
when in fact, the theory suggested the *behavior* of the evidence in the
first place.
The point is: what *seems to be* isn't necessarily so.
I'm not suggesting that the use of imagination should be avoided. I'm
arguing for something else, and that is this: you can speculate all you
like, but please, let's refrain from calling imaginary notions our bees
option. There is proper us and an abuse of imagination in scientific
theorization. I consider it an abuse of privilege if one makes all sorts of
conjectures and then promotoes them as *fact* or extremely reliable. If
evolution is so reliant upon imagination that it can't function without it
(and such is the case...), then it's reasonable to argue that the notion is
suspect. Which Phil has rightly pointed out.
You also argue for acceptance of morphology as an indicator of ancestry.
This can't be supported without evidence since there are too many existing
and morpholoigically similar groups which are not at all related, and too
many existing and morphologically dissimilar groups which are related. So,
using morphology to establish relatedness is shaky ground at best.
GR Morton wrote:
>I have not been able to explain why these particular fossils appear at just
these stratigraphical intervals with a mixture of traits between the two
groups.<
Not all of them do! As for finding fossils in a certain stratagraphic
order, sure, this is observed and decidedly not in the realm of imagination.
But, there are ALSO polystrate fossils which dip across alleged millions of
years of strata. What about them? Why just point out the fossils which fit
the theory? It is up to evolutionists to explain how fossils are found out
of sequence, across sequences, and etc. So far, such instances are
marginalized as insignificant anomalies. Right...
I have not been able to explain how most fossils appear to be usually
"sorted" in a specific sequence. However, the fact that out-of-sequence
fossils do exist gives me pause. So long as that is the case, I find that
there is room for doubt and reconsideration. And, secondly, despite the
manner in which the fossils are sorted in the rocks, the fact remains that
the VAST majority of them remain discrete species with no transitional
intermediates to link them in an evolutionary progression. So, before we
get all caught up with how they are positioned in the rocks, we have a
bigger problem to solve, and that is, why don't we see the ancestoral
intermediates locked up in there with 'em?
Best regards.
Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE