Dear All,
In an email to Dave Siemens (31 Mar) I wrote, "It is strange that you, a
Christian, dismiss my suggested 'lucid and concise explanation' of
'junk' DNA as inadequate when you still have so many transitional
'skeletons' missing from the hypothetical 'cupboard'. Does this no
longer worry evolutionists? It certainly did Darwin! - and with very
good
reason!"
This drew the following private response from a member of the forum, "As
a paleontologist, I am puzzled as to what transitions you think there
are missing. Exactly what do you think evolutionists should be worried
about regarding transitional forms?"
In my reply I asked him to suggest how the alleged transition
fish>amphibian could possibly have taken place, for in my mind it defied
all logic. In particular, in the early stages of the assumed process, I
failed to see what possible selection advantage would accrue from the
encumbering of normal fin activity with the growth of incipient legs and
feet (together with the necessary internal adjustments). My experience
over the years has been that evolutionists assure me that it must have
happened. They are far more comfortable discussing later assumed
developments in which leg and foot function obviously become significant
factors in creature survival.
I also requested evidence of the fact that such transitions have been
found in the fossil record.
To date, neither request has been met. Am I therefore correct in
inferring that this essential stage in the evolutionary enterprise is to
be taken on trust?
Sincerely,
Vernon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 16 2002 - 17:31:56 EDT