<< Developmental biology would predict
that the fossil transitions should be chimaerical creatures with parts
looking like the ancestor and parts looking like the descendant. This is
what we find in the fossil record even in the case of Ambulocetus. Both
parts of science fit together.
Now I have answered your question.>>
I beg to differ. My question was about how an obvious disadvantage can
possibly be construed as an advantage (your claim). This is a major leap at
odds with reality, in my opinion. Conclusory statements you've made in the
past don't come close to answering this question.
<< How about answering mine? What data (as opposed to old quotes) can you
present to show that evolution must produce thousands of transitional forms?
And how does that fit into the hierarchical nature of genetics which has been
observed?>>
First, I'm not at all comfortable anymore accepting your characterizations of
the data. A little reading of source material is all I needed for that. And
the term "hierarchical nature of genetics" is another of those generalizations
you like which can mean so many things it is not helpful.
At any rate, I don't think ANY evolutionist suggests atavism as a mechanism of
evolution. Not even Gould. Gould in fact says, "The odd form may, of course,
simply result from the peculiar interaction of two systems not meant to be
joined in nature." (HTAHT pg. 182).
If atavism is such a potent explanation for evolution, why isn't it championed
by the experts? Why doesn't Gould, for example, leap on it with the same
enthusiasm as Glenn Morton?
You claim to be standing in "awe" of what biologists are doing. I think the
awe is more with their conclusions. This sort of unquestioning worship
deserves further reflection, don't you think?
Jim