<<I will fully admit that the whale transition is not as good as the
fish/amphibian transition.>>
G. R. Taylor disagrees with you about fish-amphibian "transition". But your
admission is well taken nonetheless.
<<I tire of giving you the same references over and over. >>
Put your feet up awhile.
<<Go read the first part of my post on Life transitions from a few weeks back.
I documented this point in that post.>>
The point that it is "an unreasonable expectation [that a transitional
creature should be moving toward its alleged descendant]"? Now I'm the one
getting tired! I have not seen this argument substantiated anywhere in your
writings. I've seen you allege this. Let's call it what Stanley would call it,
the "continuum expectation." Where in the literature is this spelled out?
Where in your own writings is this supported? I went back to your section on
"transitional forms" and found even less there than I remembered. All you say
is that it is "an animal which has some features of each group." This is
almost meaningless. That's why I asked you this question: "How would B look
in relation to A and C if it had some features of each group, but was not
moving toward C?"
You "answered" me this way: << 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. >>
Folks will recognize this as a classic fallacy--accuse the accuser. It won't
wash. I want to know why it is *unreasaonable* to expect a continuum
transition [Note: simply saying there are "environmental and adaptational
needs" is not an answer]. And what would a non-continuum transition look like?
What criteria does one use to identify same?
I think it's clear what an incredible, Alice in Wonderland morass Glenn has
wandered into (I just can't help citing classic literature). Is that why,
instead of answering, there is an accusation?
"I'll be judge, I'll be jury," said cunning old Fury; "I'll try the whole
cause, and condemn you to death." -- Alice in Wonderland, Ch. 3.
By the way, what is unconvincing is not alleged similarities--it is the lack
of the "universe of transitional intermediates" we truly expect if
neo-Darwinism is true.
Now, in your "Life's Transition" document you claim this continuum expectation
is "NOT how transitions occur in the fossil record." But rather than admit the
obvious, you claim "Traits are not analog in nature; they are quantized." [Was
that a typo? "Quantized" is not a word] To explain this, you cite the examples
of eye color and horse toes. These are obviously examples of micro-change
which do not rule out the expectation of a continuum. When you are talking
about large morphological change, you still expect true intermediates, even if
they have five, seven or a hundred toes.
I thus don't see ANY references here.
Now, you have added a section from Gilbert, which I find tangential at best.
One conclusion you draw is this:
<<If by the addition of new parts to the homeotic genes, major morphological
change occurs, then the constant claims by anti-evolutionists for more and
more transitional forms may be based on an outdated view of genetics>>
I'm not so sure that the leap from Drosphila to higher, much more complex
forms can be made to support your point. But leaving that aside, let's assume
that a rather "large amount of evolutionary ground" can be so covered. We
still, in the higher taxa, would expect much more evidence of a sequence than
we find.
Your position is indistinguishable from Goldschmidtism. I'm sure Ernst Mayr
would be surprised to learn he is using an outdated view of genetics, but
we'll quote him anyway:
"To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type,
capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in
miracles." [Quoted in Denton, pg. 230]
I side with Mayr on this one.
<<See my response to Ashby tonight entitled, Beating a dead whale. Ashby
misunderstood when the Mesonyx arose. This part of your argument is
erroneous.>>
Ashby has responded to you, and you have admitted error. So I guess this part
of the argument still stands.
But while were here, I'd like to offer this: how much of evolutionary theory
is driven NOT by expectation, but by DESIRE? Glenn has argued frequently that,
hey, here's a creature in the strata that is transitional, just where we would
expect to find him....
Is it not rather the case that hey, we need to find a transition in this
stratum, and here's one we can use? Then we argue that this is just what we
would expect to find!
In the case of Ambulocetus, this seems to me what likely has occurred.
Glenn ends his post with a "string cite" of my conclusions about his
argument--but he doesn't deal with the substance of them! This is
disappointing to me, as the discussion was getting interesting.
I'm especially disappointed that this part was ignored, which I want to repeat
and hope to get an answer to:
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!
Glenn, is that a harpoon in your side?
Jim