That was never the question I was addressing, and in fact I specifically
stated in one of these notes that we could never be sure we had *the*
ancestor in the sense that that particular individual is on the line of
descent. I think it is absurd to expect that type of proof for evolution.
Indeed, I don't
I find it annoying that
>every new fossil is hailed as *the* ancestor, *the* grandaddy of
>whatever, when this is not known.
ONe can't control what the press reports. THat is almost never what is
claimed in the scientific literature.
>
>>I am really confused now. Surely you aren't suggesting that when we lack
>>evidence we can make it up are you? If you suggest that feathers came from
>>complex spines on animals, surely you should be obligated to suggest a
>>suitable example in the fossil record.
>
>No way. We have to go beyond the fossils to attempt to understand the
>Cambrian Explosion and many other things.
How far beyond? be specific for petes' sake. You keep saying things like
this but then never detailing what you have in mind. Are we talking about
molecular data or speaking with spirits? Both are beyond the fossils. One
is useful the other isn't.
>
>>An arboreal version of a fish in water which is in the process of
>>transforming into an amphibian? What on earth are you talking about. Are
>>you toying with my mind?
>
>We were talking about ichthyostega. I don't think it likely that ichthyostega
>is
>*the* grandaddy of *all* tetrapods. I theorize that by the time I. was
>established
>and getting fossilized there was a range of sister species in various
niches,
>all derived from something resembling a lobe-fin lungfish.
So what? All evolutionists believe this. It is no big deal. This is why
no one can say that we have *the* species or *the* individual in the line
of descent. But what was that comment about an arboreal fish you made? How
do we have an arboreal transition from fish to amphibian?
>
>>We have fossils that support the idea that feathers came from reptilian
>>scales. We have no fossils that I am aware of to support your assertion
>>that feathers arose from complex spines. We also have no arboreal
>>fish--ever. We do have fish with very tetrapod-like limbs, bone for bone.
>>We have a fish with fingers. So yes we have fossils to support the
>>suggested transitions.
>
>I don't know where I said there were arboreal fish. But actually, there
>is the climbing perch in SE Asia, Anabas testudineus, which probably
>clambers around some tree roots while its goes from pond to pond.
Here is what you said: " But it doesn't matter much. If it wasn't
ichthyostega, it was something similar, perhaps a smaller arboreal version."
I don't know what it means.
>
>"Suggested" transitions? You mean you don't have a fossil series
>proving these transitions?
No, and one can't prove that George Washington existed either. So if you
want to rule out the evidence for fossil transitions, then you must also
rule out the evidence for Georgie's existence. Both are the same kind of
historical evidence. One can say the very same thing about criminal law.
We can't *PROVE* that John Wayne Gacy killed a bunch of young men or that
Ted Bundy was the man who killed all those women. All we have is indirect,
supportive evidence which is then put into a logical scenario (by the
prosecutor) and 12 people then judge whether or not the data fits the
scenario or not. If we can use this type of historical evidence to put
someone in the gas chamber, surely we can use it for something less
important--the transition of fish to amphibians.
Sounds like you're theorizing. Anyway, my
>point is just that there are other possible models which explain the
>cited fossils. If you can suggest a transition from A to B, I can suggest
>that A and B are sister species whose similarity is a result of their
>having a common ancestor.
Once again, so what? This is what all evolutionists believe. You are not
saying something that is a big revelation or a big undercutting of
evolutinary theory. And sure, you can postulate that leprechauns gave rise
to the amphibians, but you can't produce a single fossil to back up that
contention. The way science works is that there must be some observational
support for the hypothesis. Willy-nilly ideas which are unsupported aren't
worth talking about.
>
>>It seems to me then, that you are arguing for an evolution from complex to
>>simple. I suppose then under this view, mankind is the simplest life form
>>on the planet. Sometimes I agree with this.
>
>I accept the generalization that segmented animals (including vertebrates)
>are losing segments and losing symmetry among segments. Of course the
>remaining segments are distorted in limitless ways to form different
organisms.
Vertebrates are not loosing symmetry. A mirror on one half of a human or a
horse, (down the front midline) will closely approximate the hidden half.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution