>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Vernon Jenkins
>Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 11:54 AM
>
>Glenn,
>As visitor No.114944 to your site I am impressed with the data you have
>gathered there; somewhat envious too of the traffic you have succeeded in
>generating! A few questions come to mind:
>(1) As in the past, you take me to a series of intermediate points in the
>alleged transition, FISH>AMPHIBIAN. My concern on the other hand
>is with the
>logic of believing that the process could ever have got started. Setting
>aside all evolutionary assumptions and expectations, do you really consider
>it reasonable to suppose an impairment to normal fin activity to be
>advantageous?
It is if the fish is living in very shallow water and doesn't need it as
much for steering while swimming as he does for pushing himself forward to
catch prey.
>(2) In response to my earlier posting, you wrote regarding Ichthyostega,
>"...(it) lived in shallow water...and would thrust out to grab its prey. It
>used its fins to push against the sediment to add to its speed." This might
>easily be mistaken for an 'eye-witness' account of typical Devonian
>activity. Shouldn't such details be declared as guesses?
No because geologists can tell shallow water sediments from deepwater
sediments. Ichthyostega is found in freshwater sediments.
Just so we don't get into the same silly doubting games that we are into
with animal sacrifice, freshwater sediments exhibit chemical differences
from marine waters, occasionally have desciccation cracks, and burrows of
animals which are not found in the ocean.
>(3) And again, surely predation is a two-way matter. The reality must also
>involve "How can I avoid being eaten?" You have already implied that fin
>function is reduced in Ichthyostega. Where, therefore, is the selective
>advantage that this creature has over the fish that share its environment?
Maybe it wasn't eaing fish. Maybe it was eathing tiny swimming fish or
insects.
>(4) On your web page I observe you have inserted an estimate of the time
>that has elapsed since each of the creatures you describe lived. The
>impression created is that this time sequence was derived independently of
>the alleged evolutionary sequence. Is this indeed so?
Yes, it is derived via radioactive dating. It has nothing to do with the
evolutionary sequence.
>(5) I believe the logic of my original observation stands, and I suggest
>that it is therefore appropriate that we look for a more reasonable
>interpretation of the fossil evidence. How would you respond to my belief
>that the creatures you describe lived contemporaneously in the earth's
>waters some 6000 years ago - each having been created independently as a
>distinct 'kind'?
I would think you are very poorly informed and have a great deal of wishful
thinking.
>You may already have gathered that my leanings toward YEC derive from
>biblical considerations more than any other.
Which is why evidence means nothing to you. And if it doesn't mean much, why
should we pretend to discuss it?
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 17:16:02 EDT