It should have been helpful. Until then you didn't seem to think it existed.
><<What do you expect from Scientific American. It is a generalist journal
> not a specialist.>>
>
>So why are you relying on it so heavily? Why do you assume, based on this
>article:
>
><<Somehow this fish has done what this author is talking about.>>
>
>You are assuming an evolutionary process again. In a Hugh Rossian,declarative
>sentence you assert that the FISH has done this marvelous, miraculous thing.
>Is there any possibility this fish may have been designed to live like this?
>
The fish was designed by God, but God brought him about by evolution.
>It is a reasonable hypothesis, too, that this fish was designed, like all
>else, through a "gapless developmental economy." But as you know, I don't see
>the evidence of this. I side with Taylor: "No evidence has been found of
>intermediate forms between fishes and amphibians."
I know. As with most anti-evolutionists everytime a transitional form is
found in the fossil record, the number of gaps in the fossil record increases.
by two.
>
>Glenn, however, writes:
>
><<Everything is a transitional form from what its ancestors were to what
> its
>descendants will be.>>
>
>See how this works? One can ALWAYS claim that ANY form is heading toward
> its successor form--without having to prove that the form is a true
> intermediate between species!
And as I noted above, gaps in the fossil record proliferate with every find of
a transitional form.
>
>How convenient. Speciation, the very issue, is dealt with by a verbal
> trick.
>That's the third in my catalogue: along with "imagined selective advantage"
>and "not reasonable to expect," we have "transtional snake oil." I like
> what
>Walter ReMine has to say on this, at pg. 296 of The Biotic Message:
>
I am sorry Jim. I can not accept Walter as an authority on anything. When he
was here on the list he presented an argument which was based upon a faulty
definition of an allele. This discussion took place on and before 95-08-20.
Steve Clark agreed with that assessment. Anyone who tries to write a book on
biology who doesn't know what an allele is is highly suspect as an authority.
All of this is in the archives for anyone who cares to go look.
>Creationists reasonably argue that there are no intermediate formes [as
> does
>non-creationist Taylor--JB],
Jim, the creationist paleontologist Kurt Wise does not agree with your
lawyerly opinion. He writes:
"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. The reptiles, and the
phenacodontids, which stand between the horses and their claimed
ancestors. In like manner, some fossil genera are stratomorphic
intermediates in the group in which they are classified. They are
the oldest fossils known in the group and most similar to the group
from which they are supposedly descendent. Examples include Pikaia
among the chordates, Archaeopteryx among the birds, Baragwanathia
among lycopods, Ichthyostega among the amphibians, Purgatorius
among the primates, Pakicetus among the whales and Proconsul among
the hominoids."~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.
My gosh he calls ichthyostega a stratomorphic intermediate, which is what he
calls all transitional forms. He further writes in an e-mail that went out to
among many others, some people who were on this list when we were arguing
about transistional form a year and a half ago. I never quoted from it but
here is what Kurt says. (TTFI=Traditional Transitional Forms Issue):
"Explanation: Of Darwin's four stratomorphic intermediate
expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific
stratomorphic intermediates has been the most dissappointing for
classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-
specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the
development and increased acceptance of puntuated equilibrium
theory. Darwin's second expectation -- of stratomorphic
intermediate species -- has been confirmed by such species as
_Baragwanathia_(between rhyniophytes and lycopods),_Pikaia_(between
echinoderms and chordates), _Purgatorius_(between the tree shrews
and the primates), and _Proconsul_(between the non-hominoid
primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation -- of
higher taxon stratomorphic intermediates -- has been nicely
confirmed by the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles
and the mammals and the phenacodontids between the horses and their
presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation -- of
stratomorphic series has been beautifully confirmed by such
examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale
series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (e.g. the horse
series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the
titanothere series, etc.), the _Cantius_ and _Plesiadapus_ primate
series, and the hominid series. The existence of stratomorphic
intermediates of the general type expected a priori by
macroevolutionary theory (above the level of species) should be
acknowledged by creationists for what it is: very good evidence for
macroevolutionary theory. It certainly CANNOT be said that the
traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these
fossil finds."~Kurt Wise, "'Transitional Forms' Reconsidered"
Unpublished paper, p. 4,5
"At this point in time, the largest challenge from the
stratomorphic intermediate record appears (to me) to come from the
fossil record of the whales."~Kurt Wise, "'Transitional Forms'
Reconsidered" Unpublished paper, p. 5
Why do you think Kurt would disagree with you? Do you think he might know
something here?
>
><<Not assumed, FOUND.>>
>
>They found some osteolepiform lungs? Where?
They find the markings for these features in the bones.
>
>JB <<Semi-permeable skin coverings to cut down on water loss.>>
>
>GM<< Skin is not preserved.>>
>
>But lungs are?
see above.
><< If I am ever in trouble I want you to defend me.>>
>
>You couldn't afford it.
What? Is this a special price for me? :-) Don't you do pro bono work?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm