vernon jenkins wrote:
>In your recent response to David Bradbury you spoke of "...a *Fact* of
>evolution - its been observed to occur..." As I understand matters, you
>are here speaking of the 'micro' variety, are you not? Since you later
>refer to misunderstandings regarding the definition of 'evolution',
>shouldn't you have been more careful in the phrasing of that earlier
>opinion?
"macro" and "micro" evolution loom large to creationists, but not to
biologists. "Macro" evolution to a biologist is speciation. That was first
observed to occur just after the turn of the 20th century. It was observed
in the lab in the mid-fifties. *All* evolution is "micro" it is an
accumulation of "micro" changes that eventually make something that looks
"macro" if you compare creatures that live millions of years apart.
>You also say of the level of proof required: "if applied to the judicial
>system, (it) would empty the prisons." But the tremendous claims that
>are being made in the name of science surely demand rigorous proofs! -
>otherwise we are still in the realm of metaphysics - rubbing shoulders
>with the rest of the world's 'believers'!
The exclamation points don't really help all that much. Requirements like
"you can only prove it if you go back in a time machine" are not necessary
for any historical event (like a murder that happened yesterday)--except
evolution, of course. Clues left behind and circumstantial
evidence--fingerprints,DNA, etc--are fine. A series of very similar
fossils that are obviously quite separated in time and seem to be changing
from something "wolf-like" to a modern whale is very compelling. Many such
series exist. Our own ancestory is very well documented.
>Throwing all caution to the winds, you round up with the outrageous
>claim that "It's been known for a while that evolution often takes place
>in a small portion of a population that has become isolated for some
>reason." This insight, no doubt, acquired by divine revelation! Isn't
>the truth of the matter rather that this theory has been cooked up to
>overcome some otherwise insurmountable problems with the evolutionary
>enterprise?
you really should read more. All the observed speciation events occurred
in isolated populations.
>You will gather that I do not share your beliefs. It would help me
>greatly (and, perhaps, others also) if you were to take us through the
>alleged transition 'fish to amphibian', for example. As I see it, the
>earlier stages in the assumed exchange 'leg for fin' must be accompanied
>by a loss of swimming efficiency with no compensatory advantage; hence,
>a reduction in the host's ability to gather food, to survive and to
>reproduce.
not in the least. There are modern fish which "walk" on their fins and
don't seem to suffer much from it. Rather than go to the time and trouble
to dig up and post a bunch of stuff for you to ignore, I will point to a
couple of excellent articles in talk.origins:
This discusses speciation, what it is and what has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
This huge faq traces transitional fossils from primitive fish to mammals.
Here is the exact section you asked for. It specificially covers fish to
amphibians:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
both articles are extensively referenced back to the primary literature in
case you worry that they are unnecessarily slanted.
>I suggest that the absence of such forms from the fossil
>record merely confirms what a little clear thinking should, from the
>outset, have rejected as illogical - indeed, impossible! But, perhaps I
>am overlooking something significant.
perhaps you are
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 18 2000 - 15:35:17 EDT