He then wrote, recently, to another: "(For Phil to)
claim that rodents gave rise to whales and bats is displaying an equal
lack of education."
>>>>>Glenn, I've been through all this a couple times. I CANNOT find out
where Phil makes any such claim.
He DOES cite such a claim by another person, making fun of it.
That claim by another person seems to be a little old -- but that does
blunt his argument. He could have picked a later claim, but his argument
would remain the same, I think.
In your note to me, posted here a couple weeks ago, you said, "Johnson
really thinks rodents gave rise to whales." The sections of Johnson's
book you cited CANNOT be taken as supporting that claim; rather, the
reverse.
You also gave me a citation from Whitcomb. I'm less acquainted with that
one, but it looks like the same argument applies.<<<<<
Hi Burgy,
I have looked again at the passages. In the case of whales, Johnson does
NOT cite anybody as holding to the belief that rodents gave rise to
whales. Please point out the passage where Johnson cites a person
holding that view. Yet inspite of this lack, he still states "By what
Darwinian process did useful hind limbs wither away to vestigial
proportions, and at what stage in the transformation from rodent to sea
monster did this occur?"
In the case of whales, I stand by what I said.
In the case of bats, I agree it is a bit fuzzy. I will withdraw my
charge on bats.
-- glennFoundation, Fall and Flood Adam, Apes and Anthropology http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm