>Now Glenn is "playing" his own "semantic game". He clearly says
>above that "Christian apologists give" a "view" that "there needs to
>be millions of them (mutation ) in order to change from one species
>to another". He attempted to support this with quotes from said
>"Christian apologists" writings. Now he finds his quotes don't
>really support his view, so he switches his claim to only that "their
>view NEEDS millions of mutations".
No, Stephen, I do not agree with you here. This thread started because I
pointed out that relatively few mutations were required to make most of
the morphological transtion between one species and another--8 in the case
of monkey flowers and possibly 5 in the case of corn.
I find that the quotes christian apologists make do require millions of
transitional forms. And by their definition of a transitional form (a
morphological intermediate), the transition requires millions and millions
of mutations. First what does Gish (who you cite below) say a transitional
form is? He defines it as an intermediate form:
"We would predict that new basic types would not appear suddenly in the
fossil record possessing all of the characteristics that are used to
define its kind. The earliest forms in each group would be expected to
possess in incippient form some of the characteristics which are used to
define that group while retaining characateristics used to define the
ancestral group.
"If fish evolved into amphibia, as evolutionists believe, then we
would predict that we would find transitional forms showing the gradual
transition of fins into feet and legs. Of course many other alterations
in the anatomy and physiology of fishes would have to occur to change an
animal adapted to living its entire life span in water to one which spends
mostof its life outside of water."~Duane Gish _Evolutoin the Fossils say
no!" San Diego:Creation Life Pub. 1979, p.50
"Darwin's mechanism of evolution requires that the fossil record
produce vast numbers of intermediate or transitional forms."~Duane Gish, ,
_Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, El Cajon: ICR,p. 79
Even Kurt Wise uses this definition.
"Stratomorphic intermediate species and organismal groups
should be a common feature of the fossil record. And examples of
stratomorphic intermediates do exist. Mammal-like reptiles stand
between reptiles and mammals, both in the position of their fossils
and in the structure of their bones."~Kurt P. Wise, "The Origin of Life's
Major Groups," in J. P. Moreland, editor The Creation Hypothesis,
(Downer's Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1994), p. 227.
Each of these morphological intermediates MUST have at least 1 mutational
difference from those on each side.
Stephen wrote:
>GM>Now, these transitional forms can be lined up like:
>>
>>Original species->transitional form 1,2,3...1,000,000,000->final species
>>
>>Does each transitional form have one mutation different from the one
>>previous?
>
>
>As I said before, Gish is talking about "the evolution of the complex
>invertebrates" and his "number of transitional forms" is a *total*
>number, ie. each transitional form would have thousands, if not
>millions of identical "siblings". He does not say that there needed
>to be "billions times billions" of transitional forms in a straight
>line, each with a different mutation from its predecessor.
And Stephen wrote:
>GM>If you say no, then you are saying that a transitional form can be
>>identical in genetic make up with the original form, which is ludicrous.
>>How can a transitional form be identical genetically with the original?
>>If it is identical then it is not a transitional form.
>Agreed. Neither Gish nor I are saying that "a transitional form can
>be identical in genetic make up with the original form". But there
>can be millions of *each* "transitional form" that are "identical
>genetically" with *each other*. The *total* "number of transitional
>forms that would have lived and died during the vast time span
>required for the evolution of the complex invertebrates would have
>been many billions times billions."
No, this is not correct! Gish, is saying that millions of transitional
forms are in a lineage. This can be illustrated as :
original->trans.1,2,3,...1,000,000-> final form
You are saying that Gish is envisioning things in the folowing fashion:
original->billios of form 1, billions of form 2...5->final form
Let us assume that what you are saying is true (and it is not), then
Gish says,
"If evolution is true, museums should have an immense
storehouse of the fossil transistional forms. Yet, not one has
ever been found!"~Duane T. Gish, Creation
Scientists Answer their Critics, (El Cajon: Institute for
Creation Research, 1993), p. 126-127
If your interpretation is correct, then Gish is saying that no fossils
have been found which is ridiculous. The Madison formation of Montana and
Wyoming is made up of billions upon trillions of dead crinoids. In fact
10,000 cubic miles of dead crinoids are found. (See Thomas Clark and Colin
W. Stern, The Geological Evolution of North America, New York: The Ronald
Press, 1960), p. 86-88). Thus, under your interpretation, Gish would
have to admit that evolution is true. Those billions of crinoids in the
Madison are transitional between other crinoids. Thus the vast graveyard
of crinoids shows that billions of "siblings" are found.If that is what
Gish says is wrong with evolution, tell him that I have solved the
problem of the missing transitional forms for him! (Are there any honest
YEC's out there to who would support what I am saying?)
You quote Denton as saying:
" Surely, such transitions must have
involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds or
probably thousands of transitional species (see diagram on page 175).
To suggest that the hundreds, thousands or possibly even millions of
transitional species which must have existed in the interval between
vastly dissimilar types were all unsuccessful species occupying
isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on
the incredible!" (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis",
Burnett Books: London, 1985, p193-194)
Denton makes my case quite well. Even he says Gish is wrong!
Stephen, as long as we christians must resort to the type of logic and
reasoning you have resorted to here in order to support our belief in the
Bible, we are going to continue to lose our children from the faith and
look foolish because we are foolish.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm