Preliminarily, an interesting pheonomenon: The fact that Glenn has to go to
such lengths to defend this "sequence," when it is by almost all accounts much
more privisional that he presents, merely proves the rule: the tremendous lack
of even arguable intermediates in the fossil record! So why is Glenn spending
so much time defending a single, questionable proposition?
Methinks Glenn is fully aware of the consequences. Given this one, minor
possibility of sequence, and facing the massive lack of transitionals
elsewhere, Glenn must fight digit and hoof for a scenario he has inexplicably
embraced like a convert to fundamentalism. And so he is strapped to the whales
like Ahab, who, as we all know, drowned.
Ashby wrote:
<< In other words, one would not expect the differences between
>creatures B and A to be in any direction other than toward the
>features of creature C.>>
Glenn responded:
<<This is an unreasonable expectation and requires that one ignore the
environmental and adaptational needs of the transitional animal to survive.>>
Quite the contrary, this is exactly the sort of "expectation" evolutionists
seek to confirm. Why? Because the very concept "transitional" loses all
meaning if it does not mean something like Ashby wrote. "Trans" is a moving
toward.
Take a look at the lobe-finned fishes to amphibian "transition" as
reconstructed by W. K. Gregory in Volpe, E. Peter, 1975 -Understanding
Evolution 2d- (p. 123). This is the standard expectation, illustrated. It is a
"moving toward."
This is, of course, why punc. eq. had to be advanced--to explain the lack of
true intermediates. What is an intermediate? A point on a "CONTINUUM"
[Stanley,1981 -The New Evolutionary Timetable- (p. 151)]
Glenn is arguing that to expect a continuum is "unreasonable." But Stanley,
and all other evolutionists, would never make such an argument.That is why
Glenn provided no citations to back up his remarkable thesis.
In addition, his own, previous definition of transitional form comes back to
haunt him. Glenn says a transitional form is "an animal which has some
features of each group." While there is abundant wiggle room here, as in all
evolutionist definitions, I'd like to know from Glenn just how B would look in
relation to A and C if it had some features of each group, but was not moving
toward C. Is he really contending that whatever B shares with A will not
evidence progressive change? If so, he is again at odds with his evolutionary
bretheren.
In fact, Glenn has contradicted himself. Not long ago he argued that
Ambulocetus is a true transition because it "had a proportionately longer more
streamlined skull than the Mesonychid but it is relatively broader than the
archaocetes." In other words, it was moving TOWARD archaocetes and AWAY from
Meconychid!
But this is unreasonable, according to the new Glenn standard. So why should
we give it any weight at all?
What is happening is clear: When the evidence is at all favorable, Glenn will
ignore the problems and focus only on the similarities; when the evidence is
contrary, Glenn will call any negative inferences "unreasonable."
In other words, no matter what the data is, Glenn can claim confirmation. This
is a very curious way of doing science!
Further, the concept "evironmental and adaptational needs" is one of those
evolutionary chimeras that allows any and all speculation to be inserted in
the place of lack of evidence. There is simply no data whatsoever to support
Glenn's imaginative scenario here.
So this first part of Glenn's argument is unpersuasive.
Glenn wrote (edited version):
<<For instance in the case of whales, modern whales have no back
feet....Whales, ancient and modern have vestigial legs!>>
This argument is at cross-purposes with itself. It is part of Glenn's response
to the A >>> B >>>> C expectation that is (protestations to the contrary
notwithstanding) part and parcel of all Darwinism. First, Glenn protests that
this expectation is "unreasonable." Then he provides data which is exactly the
data evolutionists use to confirm that expectation! He can't have it both
ways.
Thus, this part of Glenn's argument is illogical.
Next, Ashby pointed out a flaw in the Berta article in -Science- re: the late
appearance of Mesonyx vis-a-vis its possible ancestry of Ambulocetus. Glenn
does not dispute the middle Eocene appearance of Mesonyx, so his argument
proceeds thus:
1. <<This objection is based upon the implicit assumption that the actual
ancestor of a species MUST die and be removed from the earth when the daughter
species arises.>>
Incorrect. It is an objective view of the evidence which exists, and a logical
conclusion from it. It is Glenn making the assumption here, and it basically
boils down to: There MUST have been an earlier appearance, even though we
don't have the fossils to prove it.
Glenn cites a study of gastropods, and then concludes that it is "not unlikely
or unexpected" that erosion has obscured the very evidence he asserts must
exist.
This argument from non-evidence gets repeated all the time, and always with
the "just what we would expect" language tacked on somewhere. It is not very
clear thinking.
Thus, Ashby's logic is much sounder, and is based upon the evidence. We must
reject this part of Glenn's argument as well.
2. <<There is also the statistical argument. The earliest example of any
given activity are unlikely to have been preserved. The first boat made by
man is hardly likely to have been found, much less preserved. So when we find
the earliest boat in the archaeological record, it is quite reasonable to
infer that boats were invented some time prior to the date this boat was made.
How much earlier?>>
Here Glenn has made a good point on the surface. But it proves too much.
Sudden appearance and stasis being the law of the fossils, we must account NOT
for the earliest appearance, but for the MASSIVE AMOUNT OF TIME needed for a
species to be an ancestor! In other words, the appearance of Mesonyx so late
in fossil history may not rule out an earlier appearance (for which we have no
evidence), but it almost certainly rules out the time needed for actual
ancestry.
I'm afraid I have to give this one to Ashby too.
3. <<I used to raise fantail guppies. These fish, with brightly colored
delta-shaped tails were derived from the wild, gray fish with a small tail in
this century. While this is only a small change, it did not result in the
death of the wild-type guppy and its removal from the face of the earth. The
two forms live together today. >>
Really, this is quite irrelevant. A microchange is never going to require
removal. What was the point of this? Ashby's argument does not depend on total
removal either (this was added by Glenn so he could knock it down--that's
called a "strawman").
Also, I wonder if Glenn is aware that this argument can also be applied to the
first appearance of the alleged descendant. In other words, even if Mesonyx
could have appeared earlier, so could Ambulocetus! And the same time problem
Ashby originally pointed out remains.
In conclusion here, I must say that Glenn's logic is flawed on geologic
grounds (and him, and ex-oil man!), on paleontologic grounds, on statistical
grounds and on historical grounds. Primarily logic, though.
That, and a conviction re: the whale sequence which is simply not borne out by
the literature. On that note, see Berta: "A well-corroborated phylogenetic
context with which to interpret these character transformations would greatly
enhance its utitlity. For example, since the pelvic girdle is not preserved,
there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the
hindlimb and the axial skeleton." (pg. 180)
In reading Thewissen et al. and Berta, I found the assumed evolution of the
feet most interesting. Mesonychids had small feet and leg structures in
keeping with land locomotion. Ambulocetus natans, OTOH, has huge feet front
and back, with aquatic leg locomotion design. Even more troubling, though, is
that on land the semipronated elbow of Ambulocetus natans (according to
Thewissen at 211) "left the hands sprawling when the shoulder was abducted,"
meaning they stuck out away from the head. Why? Because if the feet pointed
toward the head, their size would have interfered with locomotion! Yet this is
exactly how Mesonychid feet were designed--forward vis-a-vis crania, exactly
what forward moving, land dwelling creatures need.
In the face of all of this, Glenn's response to Ashby was, Ambulocetus...did
gain a selective advantage from the elongation and divergence of the fingers
and the growth in the size of the feet."
This is, of course, a conclusion, with no basis in fact or logic (Glenn
provides neither at this point). In fact, the discussion above indicated the
elongation would be a selective *disadvantage* for nascent Ambulocetus!
How could Glenn have gotten this so wrong? Simply because, like the authors in
-Science- and -Nature-, he ASSUMES the FACT of evolution above all else. In
Glenn's quote above, evolution = selective advantage. Read it that way and
you'll see that it is conclusory only.
The obvious morphological gap between Mesonychid and Ambulocetus, combined
with the timing problem Ashby pointed out, effectively kills this purported
ancestry for the time being. (The skull configurations, as Ashby noted, are
likewise discontinuous. The Berta diagram is almost self-refuting on that
score).
This discussion began with Glenn's critique of, inter alia, Phillip Johnson.
The critique was levelled at minor points, though, and not at Phil's central
argument. From the above, I must conclude that Phil is proved right, for in
Glenn's case he fails to "mention the existence of any unresolved problems in
the whale evolution scenario, but the problems are immense. Whales have all
sorts of complex equipment to permit deep diving, underwater communication by
sound waves, and even to allow the young to suckle without taking in sea
water. Step-by-step adaptive development of each one of these features
presents the same problems discussed in connection with wings and eyes..."
(DOT 2d pp. 86-87) This critique applies, of course, to the articles in
-Science- where, as always, the fact of evolution is assumed.
Glenn also criticized Phil's critique of the fish to amphibian "transition"
(pp. 76-77 in DOT 2d). Here, Phil is backed up by none other than G. R.
Taylor, -The Great Evolution Mystery- (1984) pp. 58-59: "No evidence has been
found of intermediate forms between fishes and amphibians." He illustrates
with -Ichthyostega-, and thence to -Bothriolepis-, -Phamphodopsis-,
-Coccosteus-, -Eusthenopteron-, -Climatius-, and -Pteraspis-.
In sum, it looks like Glenn claims too much for the whales. Further, the
intense focus here only magnifies the enormous problem of lack in the entire
fossil record vis-a-vis true intermediates.
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all
that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life
and thought, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically
assailable in Moby Dick." -- Melville, -Moby Dick- (ch. 41)
Jim