GR>The problem is that anti-evolutionists from Gish to Phillip Johnson say that
GR>there are no transitional forms. There are. Even if one does what you are
GR>suggesting and say that this series is a grab bag, you cannot deny the fact
GR>that these are a series that appear transitional. They simply choose not to
GR>acknowledge them. To tell a student that there are no transitional forms
GR>without warning him of sequences like these is to leave him ill-prepared whe
GR>he goes to college and learns of such things. And the anti-evolutionists nev
GR>write about such sequences in enough detail to let us know what the
GR>evolutionist is saying.
The problem with so-called transitional forms is that they are exactly
what you also say they are.... they APPEAR transitional. There is no
fact... only interpretation that assumes an evolutionary origin. Even
granting the few that are anatomically close does not prove the greater
assumption regarding transition as evidence for macro-evolution. In
fact, the vast majority of forms contradict it by appearing distinctly
different in the fossil record. By weight, this is evidence for
pre-existent creative diversity and against evolution.
To tell a student that there are transitional forms without warning him
of the consequences of so many that are not is to leave him ill-prepared
to truthfully learn of such things.
Paul Durham
to: IN:GRMorton@gnn.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu