Me an Ahab. Aye me matey. I give a gold coin to the first one to spy the
white whale.
Jim Bell wrote:
>So why is Glenn spending
so much time defending a single, questionable proposition?
Methinks Glenn is fully aware of the consequences. >>
I will fully admit that the whale transition is not as good as the
fish/amphibian transition. I spend the time because I do not think Christian
apologetical books are telling enough of the data. We tell them that there
are NO transitional forms. Whether you want to accept these fossils as
transitional or not is not the main thrust of my argument. Many people will
be persuaded (indeed have been persuaded) that the writers of apologetical
books are not telling them the whole story. As I have said before, if
evolution is untrue, that is fine with me, but you fail to give me a causal
explanation of the data except for the caprice of God.
Jim wrote:
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. <<
I tire of giving you the same references over and over. Go read the first
part of my post on Life transitions from a few weeks back. I documented this
point in that post. But I am willing to be corrected by Terry Gray or James
Mahaffy, or Art Chadwickor any other biologist.
Jim wrote:
>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.<
I would dare say there is also plenty of wiggle room for you too. No
similarity whatsoever will ever convince you that evolution fits the data.
For every transitional form that the evolutionists find, you can claim that
the number of gaps which need transitional forms has increased by two. Thus
we have here a modified form of one of Xeno's (Zeno's) paradoxes.
Jim wrote:
>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. <<
Seee my response to Ashby tonight entitled, Beating a dead whale. Ashby
misunderstood when the Mesonyx arose. This part of your argument is
erroneous.
I wrote:
<<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. >>
Jim replied:
>
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").<<
So explain to me why a large change REQUIRES removal! We will have to
disagree on what we respectively see as the requirements of Ashby's argument.
Jim wrote:
>In conclusion here, I must say that Glenn's logic is flawed on geologic
grounds (and him, and ex-oil man!)..."<,
Have you been talking to my boss? Did he tell you that? He has not informed
me that I am an EX oilman yet. I drilled a successful well for him last week
and becoming an EX-oilman is my reward!!! :-)
Jim wrote:
>So this first part of Glenn's argument is unpersuasive.<<
and
>Thus, this part of Glenn's argument is illogical.<<
and
>. We must
reject this part of Glenn's argument as well.<<
and
>I'm afraid I have to give this one to Ashby too.<<
Somehow, Jim, I am not surprised. :-)
glenn