On Wed, 15 Nov 95 18:45:09 PST you wrote:
KW>If you guys are going to postulate that there was an evolution from
>Archaeopteryx's mouth full of teeth to a beak, I want to hear your
>proposal for HOW that could have happened. None of this *I suppose
>it could have happened* stuff. Anyone can say that. Let's get down
>to some nitty gritty guys.
>All I've seen here so far is speculation and nothing substantive (not
>surprizingly).
I agree with Kevin. I would be convinced of evolution if plausible
naturalistic mechanisms could be found that would show how a jaw
with teeth became a beak with no teeth.
As some evolutionists have pointed out this has to be done before
Archaeopteryx (and other claimed transitional forms) can be
accepted as evidence for *evolution*. For example, Lecomte du Nouy
states:
`Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the
animal realm are disconnected from a paleontological point of view.
In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes
of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of
actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to
consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By
link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as
reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying
characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a
true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and
as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown.' (du Nouy
L., Human Destiny, The New American Library: New York, 1947, p58,
(Gish D.T., "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record", Master
Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, 1986, p115-116).
No doubt I will get the usually "positivist" and "you don't
understand how science works", routine. But until I see this type of
harder evidence, I will continue to believe that the process was not a
100% naturalistic one, but required Divine intervention at strategic
points. I repeat, just showing that Archaeopteryx is similar in body
plan and some shared features with reptiles, does not show
conclusively that the process was: a) fully naturalistic, or even b)
Darwinian.
Darwinists just *assume* it *must* have been their brand of evolution,
because they have set up the rules of the game to exclude any
competitors (read Johnsons DOT and RITB). Just playing word-games
does not show that something really happened.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------