>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. >
and in response to a quote of Volpe,
>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?
Jim replied:
>
>Fell into my little trap, eh? Pre-punc eq, the standard teaching was gradual
>intergradations.
No, Jim, I did not fall into your trap you didn't understand. I said I didn't
KNOW of a single evolutionist who believes in morphing. This statement applies
to TODAY. I didn't say "There were ever any who believed that". That was the
entire reason for my mention of Darwin. They used to believe in morphing but
they don't anymore. There may be a few die hards but I can't think of any.
Even those who do not like punc-eq. talk about mosaic evolution, where one
small part of an organism changes quickly into something different. These are
still punctuations.
>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]
>
I think you cease reading too quickly.If you will merely turn to the
illustration on page 60 of that book, you will see what he calls intermediate
species. The shape of the nurse shark (a in the drawing) is clearly different
(but not too different) than the angel shark (f), which is different from the
guitarfish (g) which is different from skate (h) which is different from the
singray (i) which is different from the butterfly ray (j). Each step is
discrete. A true morphing would have many more steps than what is shown.
Even Futuyama does not show a morphing sequence.
>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."
But a small gradual change does not mean a morphing. In morphing the steps are
so small as to be unnoticeable.
>
><< 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 beingevolved
>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.
That was an answer????? Looked like an evasion to me. :-)
>
>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!
So?? Evolutionists can be wrong, just like you. When was that book written?
Besides, this talk of a party sounds so conspiratorial. Is this the
evolutionist party like the communist party?
>
>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.
>
Sorry to interrupt Mr. Taylor, but you know? Snakes seem to get along just
fine breathing without legs. I can lay on my couch or the floor and breathe
just fine. I think this guy is wrong. Who is he anyway?
[snip of long quote--quote continues]
>"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."
>
Is this Paul Taylor or Ian Taylor?
[snip]
> (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).
>
According to whom?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm