<snip, snip>>
>My objection goes like this:
>
>Is there a good fossil record of transitional forms? Well, that's just what
>the evolutionary model would predict.
>
>Is the fossil record incomplete? Well, that's just what the evolutionary
>model would predict.
>
>Is the record lacking altogether? Well, that's just what the evolutionary
>model would predict.
>
>And so it goes, up & down the line.
>
>The model is so adaptable, so malleable, that, IMO, there is no conceivable
>set of scientific data that could not be subsumed by it.
What if human footprints _were_ found next to dinosaur footprints,
What if modern pollen were found in precambrian rock,
What if the speed of light were shown to have slowed down over time
I personally don't give much credence to the evidences of any of these
suggestions but they _would_ present much more than an inconvenience to the
timetable upon which the theory of orgainic evolution rests if proven true.
I think they _would_ be truly revolutionary.
I'll admit that biological evolution can be more easily molded around
seemingly contradictory data. If, while I am looking at the chloroplast
genome, am looking at the mitochondrial or chloroplast genome or higher
plants and I suddenly find myself with a sequence that matches that of a
fungus or bacteria, rather than throwing out all my assumptions I will look
to contamination first but upon eliminating that possibility I then can
come up with scenarious involving gene transfer from one orgainism to
another accross even Kindom bounderies, something quite unheard of 20 some
years ago but appearing to play a more and more important role (at least in
our explanations!). I won't go further with the "fitting new data into a
theory" bit because theres been much good discussion already.
Joel
Dpt. Plant Biology
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-6509
E-mail: Duff@siu.edu