Re: Panderichthyids and trans...

Kevin Wirth (kevin.wirth@accessone.com)
Wed, 28 Jun 95 21:56:24 PDT

>To: Andrew MacRae <macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca>
>From: kevin.wirth@accessone.com (Kevin Wirth)
>Subject: Re: Panderichthyids and trans...
>
>Boy, are you in for a lot of work!
>
>>>|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?
>>>
>>> We often do. Glenn just presented _Acanthostega_, for example.
>>
>> Sigh. (my turn)
>>
>>I refer to my comments made just prior to this post to Glenn Morton
>>addressing the problem of data and linking it with imagination. There is
>>
>>no data which can compellingly establish evolutionary transitions. What
>>we have are morphologically similar critters which we PRESUME to call
>>transitional. We can't (legitimately) say that because critter A and
>>critter B existed, therefore, they are or indicate transitions. We really
>>don't know that they *evolved* according to your explanation. You cannot
>>get around the fact that transitionals require imagination to explain how
>>the changes *might have* taken place.
>>
>>
>>========
>>
>> Very true. But that is raising the interpretation of evidence to
>>an awfully high standard,
>
>Well, wait a minute here. That's also a matter of opinion! Besides, if
you're going to expect me to contemplate accepting a theory which is going
to have a significant impact on the way that I look at life, I think a high
standard is warranted! Evolutionists also present a standard. They expect
us to accept what they say as reasonable and even highly probable. So
probable in fact that if you DON'T choose to accept that view, you are
likely to lose your job, status, future (and past) awards and promotions if
you are unlucky enough to be a member of academia or scientific
institutions. Go ask Forrest Mims about standards. Go ask the young man I
know who was cheated of a degree because he dared to choose *not* to accept
evolutionary standards as his guiding light. Go ask Dean Kenyon of San
Francisco State what it was like to have honor and privilege stripped from
him after publicly admitting he preferred creation to evolution. The only
thing that saved his job was his tenure -- but they sure made his life hell
for quite a long time. Go ask the man who lost his "teacher of the year"
award when someone decided to point out he was a creationist. Did he keep
his award? No way. Countless stories like these literally erupt from the
past, and I can recount far too many of them. So please don't even BEGIN to
tell me about MY high standards!!! Don't EVEN get me going on this, because
I will guarantee you I will make the standards of evolutionists make my
standards look like dogfood next to shrimp and scampi! Sorry, but you can't
have your cake and eat it too...
>
>>and the fact remains that where evolutionary
>>theory would predict the occurrence of a fossil with "transitional"
>>morphology (i.e. after the first occurenence of lobe-finned fish and
>>before the first occurrence of "clear" amphibians), it has been found.
>
>Excuse me? *What* exactly has been *found*? What is the *it* to which
>you are referring?
>
>>We
>>do not have access to a time machine to observe these creatures in the
>>process of going about their daily lives, and the fossil record is not
>>complete enough to document every possible increment of change,
>
>Baloney! The fossil record doesn't have to be *complete enough to document
>every change*, it only needs to be complete enough to document a few hundered
>out of the thousands of alleged changes that *must have* taken place. The
>*completeness* issue is a red herring. It's complete enough alright -- there
>*should be* plenty of tranistional fossil sequences around to support the
theory
>if it were in fact a viable one.
>
>>but that
>>level of detail is not required for the acceptance of the occurrence of
>>many other historical events, whether there were human witnesses or not.
>
>Obviously, you and I disagree again. Maybe YOU don't require this, but that's
>pretty easy for you to say. I think it's a cheap out, myself, but hey --
it leaves me in a stronger position. If you DON'T have that level of detail
(and in fact, you don't), then all you DO have is...S_P_E_C_U_L_A_T_I_O_N
linking the evidence. Not very solid ground. If I were you, I would WANT
to see this level of detail, and not be so quick to excuse the lack of it.
Saying that this level of detail isn't required is rather convenient, don't
you think? (I mean, since you DON'T have it, I guess I can understand your
willingness to suggest that it's REALLY not all that important after all...).
>
>>We can not know evolutionary theory (i.e. natural selection) is the
>>process that accounts for the presence of _Acanthostega_, but there is
>>little question it *could* account for it, that the evidence is compatible
>>with it, and that predictions made by the theory are usually correct.
>
>Wrong again. There are PLENTY of excellent questions about natural selection.
>Haven't you read any in the past 10 years? Do I have to go to my file
cabinet and dig out my list (or would someone else care to throw out some
appropriate citations here...)? I can't believe how you rattle this stuff
off. It's like major deja vu here. Geez...
>
>>If
>>we stopped finding "transitional" fossils with the right morphology at the
>>right time, then the theory would be falsified. But we keep finding them.
>
>(Sigh). As I have already gone to great lengths to explain...we most
assuredly do NOT *find* any *transitional* fossils. What we find are
fossils that we CALL *transitional*. There's a BIG problem here in our
semantics! Let's please get this straight. Transitional fossils are the
product of an idea. They aren't out there in the rocks waiting to be
discovered like we find nuggets of gold. The whole idea of searching for
*missing links* presupposes that there ARE such things. And frankly, we
don't KNOW that missing links ever existed, some of us just THINK they did.
*Missing links* are not facts, they are the embodiment of an IDEA. As such,
they definitely do not qualify as *evidence*, although, there are plenty of
people out there who sure think so. You know who you are. Come on, admit it.
>
>>Considering how many paleontologists there are, how many extinct organisms
>>there are, and how much time/rock there is to look at, the payoffs have
>>been pretty good.
>
>They certainly have. But that doesn't mean that evolution has been
established by these efforts. It means that the idea has been widely accepted.
>
>> You are right. This does not conclusively demonstrate
>>evolutionary theory is (as?) the only explanation. But there is little
doubt
>>the evidence does support it.
>
>Little doubt? No sir, there is plenty of room for BIIIIIIIGGG doubt!
Look, the *EVIDENCE* does no such thing as *support* evolution! Like Glenn,
you are focused on the data! Like Glenn, you've been baited and switched;
hornswaggled. You've been led to THINK that your beliefs are based on the
evidence, but in fact, they are NOT! Please, PLEASE -- do yourself a favor.
Go read 25 articles from reputable evolutionary periodicals(this a real
assignment!)and highlight all the times conditional language is used (i.e.,
*most experts agree that*, *there is little doubt that this means*, etc.
etc.)to support the contention that the data is "evolutionary". Report back
to us what you find. I'll do the same.
>
>Also, I want you to go on a serious hunt for articles calling natural
selection into question. I'll even give you a hint: look up the last name
BRADY in your search. There are others. Go back as far as 1980. Then,
report back to us some of the questions about natural selection that you
found. Then we'll have something to talk about.
>
>Best regards...and happy hunting. And please, don't come back and tell us
you couldn't find anything. Because it IS out there!
>
>
>Kevin

Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE