On Wed, 5 Jul 1995 22:57:28 -0400 you wrote:
GM>ABSTRACT: 1. This is my response to Ashby Camp's critique of my
>whale transitional form post..
SJ> 2. Progressive Creation concedes that there may be fossil forms
intermediate between land mammals and whales, but questions the
assumption that they are necessarily evidence for naturalistic
evolution, since they may be analogies and the same evidence could
support other theories, eg. Progressive Creation. This response will
be in four parts: 1. Introduction; and major problems with the naturalistic
evolutionary hypothesis for mesonychid - whale transition, namely: 2. the
too brief time-frame of 10-15 million years to effect these
massive transitions naturalistically; 3. the difficulty of a plausible
Darwinist mechanism of mutation and cumulative natural selection to
account for the changes in detail; and 4. the lack of fossil evidence
for the necessary intermediate stages.
[...]
GM>It is in this sense that what I am doing is much different than
>merely assuming evolution...If evolution is true, then certain
>observational facts are expected. Morphologically similar organisms
should be found at closely co-temporal strata...But what
>observational facts are expected from PC? Especially facts which
>differentiate it from evolution? It would seem to me that the
>rejection of evolution requires the belief in a causally disjointed
>paleontological record..While this may garner criticism for "replacing
>God with Evolution" Isaac Newton was similarly criticized for replacing
>God with gravitation in the astronomical realm. (see Andrew D. White,
>"A History of The Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom,"(New
>York: George Brazillier, 1955, p. 15-16...)
1. Introduction
As I have said before in my clarifications post, Progressive Creation
would not rule out apriorily evidence of intermediate fossil forms,
but it would predict they would be rare, because of the precision and
rapidity with which a intelligently directed change could occur. Much
of traditional creationist objections to transitional forms is due to
YEC to which even one proven transitional form would be fatal. That
PC would predict some intermediate forms is confirmed by Morris:
"There is another aspect of the fossil record, however, which seems to
support the evolution model. Different forms of life seem to have
first appeared in different geologic ages-first in vertebrates, then
marine vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles then birds and
mammals, then man. Some such sequence as this is of course a primary
prediction of the evolution model. Creationism on the other hand
would expect to find all the major kinds of organisms appearing at
essentially the same time, unless there were a number of different
periods of creation. This latter idea, called by its advocates
"progressive creation'..." (Morris H.M., "The Troubled Waters of
Evolution", 1974, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, CA, p92).
That intermediate forms are not solely explained by naturalistic macro-
evolution is pointed out by palaeontologist Kurt Wise:
"The general features of the fossil record that are explained by
evolutionary theory are at least as well explained by other theories.
The existence of a Creator who introduced organisms on the earth in a
particular order could explain the general change in organisms through
the record, but so could the effects of a global flood as it
successively sampled from a biogeographically zoned distribution of
organisms. The general change in organisms through time can be
predicted by any one and all of these three theories (macroevolution,
progressive creation, global deluge). " (Wise K.P., "The Origin of
Life's Major Groups", in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis",
1994, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p226).
However it must be stated at the outset that it is possible that
mesonychid, ambulocetus and whales are not related to each other at
all. That they possess some similarities of skeletal features and
appear in ascending stratigraphic order, is all that can be said with
certainty. Similarity of skeletal features is not conclusive
evidence of homology (resemblance due to common ancestry), but may
merely be analogy (resemblance due to other factors). This is called
convergence or parallel evolution. Examples are the similarity
between the placental and marsupial wolves:
"The dog-like carnivore, the thylacine, known locally in Australia as
the Tasmanian wolf, lived until recently in the remote rain forests of
southwest Tasmania. Although as a marsupial the thylacine was quite
unrelated to the placental dog, it was incredibly similar in gross
appearance and in skeletal structure, teeth, skull, etc, so similar in
fact that only a skilled zoologist could distinguish them. Anyone who
has been privileged to handle, as I have, both a marsupial and
placental dog skull will attest to the almost eerie degree of
convergence between the thylacine and the placental dog. Yet in terms
of the soft anatomy of their reproductive systems, there is an
enormous difference between the two groups." (Denton M., "Evolution:
A Theory in Crisis",1985, Burnett Books, p178).
Another intesting example of extreme similarity not due to close
common ancestry, is the pandas:
"The giant panda and the lesser, or red panda present us with an
eloquent illustration of the problem with homologous and analogous
structures. Both pandas are native to the bamboo forests of southwest
China. For over a century, scientists were unable to agree whether
the two pandas are members of the bear family or the raccoon family.
About half the studies done on the pandas concluded that they are
bears; half concluded that they are raccoons. In 1964 a study was
done that is now generally accepted as the definitive interpretation.
Its conclusion? That the giant panda is a bear, but the red panda is
a raccoon...Perhaps the most dramatic similarity is that each panda is
graced with a "thumb". It is not a true thumb but rather an enlarged
bone of the wrist. Yet it operates much like a thumb and is even
partly opposable. The giant panda uses it to strip bamboo, an
activity in which it is engaged most of the day. The red panda's
thumb is smaller than the giant panda's but is used in much the same
way. For over a century, the striking similarities between the two
pandas were considered "homologies" and the animals were classified
together. Today, however, they are classified in different families
and so the similarities must now be considered "analogies," which is
awkward for something so peculiar as the unusual thumb." (Davis P. &
Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of
Biological Origins", Second Edition, 1993, Foundation for Thought and
Ethics, Richardson, TX, pp30-31).
Wise notes that analogies are more frequent than was was once thought:
"Analogies can be identified through the use of trees of similarity.
Assuming the organisms in such a tree are related through a common
ancestor, each tree then represents a possible phylogeny. From such
phylogenies one can determine the order in which various features of
the organisms would have come into existence if the groups had
followed that evolutionary pathway. In this way it is possible to
tell whether any given feature could have evolved just once or must
have evolved more than once. With the assistance of computers, an
increasing number of trees of similarity are being produced. One of
the striking features of such trees is that analogies are being found
to be a very common feature of life. Every tree that takes into
account at least a couple dozen features and includes several major
groups of organisms seems to encounter several noninherited
similarities." (Wise K.P., "The Origin of Life's Major Groups", in
Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, Inter Varsity
Press, Illinois, p213)
To the non-evolutionist, the argument that skeletal similarity plus
stratigraphic order is necessarily evidedence of common ancestry, does
not appear compelling. As with human evolution, those who found the
evidence were seeking to prove evolution, and this has in the past led
to premature conclusions and even outright fraud. In fact one of the
most prominent fossil whale hunters has admitted to "making up"
aspects of previous discoveries:
"We were making it up before," says Gingerich. "Now we don't have
to." (Zimmer C., "Back to the Sea", Discover, January 1995, p84)
Non-evolutionists agree with Johnson:
"Before going to the evidence I have to impose an important
condition... It is that the evidence must be evaluated independently
of any assumption about the truth of the theory being tested."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, InterVarsity Press,
Illinois, p75).
It is this evidence that I will examine. Some of the installments
will involve extensive quoting. I tried to abbreviate these as much as
possible. I will span out each installment to ease the pressure on us
all.
Continued #2. Time
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------