<<I don't know of a single evolutionist who believes that there should be a
gradual morphing of one species into another. Darwin may have believed that,
but Darwin was wrong. Let me give a rather delicate example.
Almost all mammals have, ahem, penile bones, which aid in rapid copulation.
Mankind lacks such paraphenalia. There is no gradual series in which such a
feature is lost and no evolutionist would expect one either.>>
That's because evolution is not true, Glenn. Sheesh, that was an easy one.
JB<<But when you read texts on fish-amphibian transition, and see the
>reconstructions they make, it is exactly this sort of morphing transition
> they are arguing for (e.g., Volpe, -Understanding Evolution 2d.-, pg. 123).
GM<<Good grief, if I am not mistaken, Volpe was written prior to the first
article on Punctuated equilibrium. Can't you find anything newer than that?
Fell into my little trap, eh? Pre-punc eq, the standard teaching was gradual
intergradations. The gaps changed all that. So all recent evolutionary writing
is in some way trying to get around that embarrassing lack. You do it by the
"unreasonable to expect" argument. But it was sure reasonable all the way into
the 80's. What suddenly made it "unreasonable"? The FACTS!
How convenient to change the essential structure of the theory because the
facts are against it. It is the Mortons who seem to be shouting, "It can't be
so, please tell me it can't be so." The evolutionists pat you on the head and
say, "There, there. We'll just get rid of that big, nasty boogie man! We'll
call him 'unreasonable.' Now don't you feel better?"
I guess you do.
I also quoted Futuyma. Here is more from him:
"There is no gap between thrushes and wrens, between lizards and snakes, or
between sharks and skates. A complete gamut of intermediate species runs from
the great white shark to the butterfly ray, and each step in the series is a
small one, corresponding to the slight differences that separate species."
[Science On Trial, Pantheon, 1983, p. 58]
Want another? How about the popular Addison-Wesley Biology text (A Systems
Approach, 1988) at pg. 615:
"Many scientists interpret the modern synthesis theory to imply that evolution
is a gradual, ongoing process of change and adaptation. They state that
evolution is the accumulation of SMALL GRADUAL CHANGES that were favored by
natural selection."
QED.
<< Using your reasoning, what DESIGN advantage is there in these
legs which stick out at the neck for land locomotion? After all if this
creature was instantaneously created by the Designer rather than being evolved
by the desinger, why did God give him such awkward feet?>>
Wait a second. You're the one arguing that Ambulocetus walked on land, not me.
What evidence have you of that? None. That was the point. Thewissen offers no
evidence, either. It is assumed, because it is necessary for the fiction to
continue.
<<I answered your question but I bet you won't answer my question about the
Design advantage to those feet. You seem never to answer direct questions.>>
See above.
Re: the alleged fish-amphibian "transition," Glenn continues to fall in line
with the party. What that party fails to mention is the lack of intermediate
forms. As Taylor says: "No evidence has been found of intermediate forms
between fishes and amphibians." [The Great Evolution Mystery, pg. 58] And HE
was an evolutionist!
As Johnson notes, the story to be tested is that a fish species developed the
ability to climb out of the water and move on land. But here are the problems
NO ONE has been able to solve, to this day. Taylor at 56ff. (no ellipses!):
"The real obstacles to such a move were the massive structural changes needed
to make life on land worthwhile. To bein with, the fish would need legs simply
in order to relieve the pressure of its body on the ground, which would
compress the lungs.
"Equally importantly, the land animal needs a strong pelvic girdle. The fins
of fishes are attached only to bony plates beneath the skin and could not
support he weight of the body until a link had been provided to transmit their
support to the spine. There were problems with the front suspension too, for
in fishes the forward fins are firmly linked to the skull. Turned into legs,
the animal would have to move its head from side to side with each step, so a
new system of suspension had to be provided. Finally, since the weight of the
body was no longer taken by the water, the spine itself needed strengthening.
"We are all so used to the idea of bone that it is hard for us to realize what
a milestone the creation of bone was. Without bone, or something very like it,
many terrestrial creatures could not support themselves against the drag of
gravity. The American biologist T.H. Frazzetta recalls how the mystery of
bones was what first turned his attention to the subject of evolution. 'I was
drawn to them for the very unscientific reason that their variety of ornate
surfaces, flowing twists and turns, odd-shaped apertures, hooks and bumps,
made them, in my eyes, exquisitely fashioned works of sculpture,' he writes.
"Bone has a precise, indeed an unique, structure, being composed of mineral
and living matter interspersed. The strength of bone comes from the mineral
component: crystals of hydroxyapatite; the adaptability from the living
collagen. The two are arranged in specific patterns, with spaces reserved for
living bone-making cells and for blood vessels.
"You may be one of those who think of bone as inert, stony, almost eternal. In
fact it is highly mobile, almost fluid on the evolutionary scale.
Bone-building cells add to it here, bone-destroying cells erode it there,
until it is sculptured into a different form, even in the span of a single
lifetime. On the evolutionary scale, of course, much bigger changes are
possible. If one of the larger bones is sliced in half, it is seen to contain
a spongework of criss-crossing sheets, the trabeculae, which align themselves
in precisely the best way to absorb the stresses to which that particular
bone, in that individual, is being subjected. Like the network of girders
which support a bridge or a structure like the Eiffel Tower, this gives
strength for a minimum of weight. In addition the major bones contain a
cavity, lined with a special sheath, which generates the blood cells needed by
the blood. Human blood cells have a life of only 120 days, and you and I rely
on our marrow providing a stream of replacements. Another membrane covers the
exterior. (It is from the internal and external sheaths that the bone-making
cells come.) Then there is the mystery of joints, with their capsule of
cartilage and their remarkable lubricant, the synovial fluid.
"IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE CREATION OF BONE REQUIRED NOT ONE BUT A WHOLE BURST OF
MUTATIONS, ALL INTEGRATED TO A SINGLE END--AN INCREDIBLE THING TO HAPPEN BY
CHANCE EVEN IF NOTHING ELSE HAD BEEN GOING ON."
And that is only the start of it. We have the mystery of the dermal bone (on
the surface of the head) somehow taking over the spine (no evidence of
transitions here, or even the suggestion of one). Next, we must explain the
origin of scales. This hasn't been done, either. Next, to keep the body from
drying out, the scales must have given way to some sort of skin. Next, eyes
need to be protected from drying out by tear flow, and eyelids, and the nose
has to be protected by mucus. Next, the sense organs have to change. And of
course, you have the leg problem. There are no intermediate forms from finned
to limbed creatures. (Pandericthys, it should be noted, had fins, not legs,
and is not in the right place to be an intermediate for this massive
structural change).
So how did all these massive, adaptive changes come about? We have NO fossil
record of such transitions. Why not? Because "it is unreasonable to expect"
them (Morton, 1996). That allows us to believe in this fish story with no
qualms. The problems just go away, poof!
But the fishy smell remains.
JB>In the world Darwinians want us to believe in, it is reasonable to expect
>true fossil transitions. And good science requires more than the chimeras of
>the mind.
GM<<And Christian apologetics needs more than the statement, "It can't be so,
please tell me it can't be so.">>
If that is tacit agreement with my statement, then I am happy to agree with
yours. Hold science to a consistent standard, and there is no problem.
The problem comes when science is expected to put up or shut up, and instead
cries out, "That's unreasonable!"
Funny use of the word "reason."
Jim