Its worth pointing out once again that Darwin was an orthodox Anglican who
intended to go into the ministry when he went on the Beagle and later began
convinced about evolution.
Moreover, another person, Alfred Russell Wallace, independently came to same
conclusion as Darwin re evolution by natural selection. They coauthored
together the paper that fist advanced the theory of evolution by natural
selection. For more info, see
http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/darwin/darwindex.html
That two persons, working independently in different parts of world, came up
the same theory, significantly boosts the conclusion that the theory of
evolution follows from the evidence, rather than is an a priori conclusion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:10 PM
To: Walter Hicks; Shuan Rose
Cc: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net; Asa
Subject: Re: A matter of trust?
This is too simplistic. What Acanthostega showed was that legs preceeded
walking on land. I t provides link in a sequence from marine/pond fish to a
terestial amphibian. Of course the fossil record does not show one species
merging into another and more than the archeological dig on a battlefield
will show one soldier killing another. What it does show are a variety of
sequences of minor changes over time so that one must postulate either an
external force returning at frequent intervals to do the annual model revamp
or there is common descent. This is what Darwin wrote in 1844;
"I must premise that, according to the view ordinarily received, the myriads
of organisms, which have during past and present times peopled this world,
have been created by so many distinct acts of creation. . That all the
organisms of this world have been produced on a scheme is certain from their
general affinities; and if this scheme can be shown to be the same with that
which would result from allied organic beings descending from common stocks,
it becomes highly improbable that they have been separately created by
individual acts of the will of a Creator. For as well might it be said that,
although the planets move in courses conformably to the law of gravity, yet
we ought to attribute the course of each planet to the individual act of the
will of the Creator. "
What is interesting is to read his notebooks of 1836 to 1838 and see how he
gradually became totally convinced that evolution had occurred. It was not
by assuming evolution in the first place.
Again I think many have successfully cast doubt on evolution implying it is
an a priori decision. Historically evolution came slowly and the ideas of
Lamarck , E Darwin and Chambers (Vestiges) were not accepted because of the
lack of evidence.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
To: "Shuan Rose" <shuanr@boo.net>
Cc: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: A matter of trust?
> I tend to support evolution. However, I do have to say that those
> proving its existence do so by assuming it it is correct to begin with.
> Example below.
>
>
>
> > Shuan Rose wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vern,
> > Check out
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html.
> >
> > The link below shows a transitional fossil
> >
> >
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Acanthostega&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates
> >
> >
> > This link profiles the person who has spent forty years looking
> > for and working on these fossils, so her explanation carries more
> > weight to me than all those critics who have never even seen a real
> > fossil. She lays out the whole theory of the transition, and answers
> > the question of how digits developed from fins
>
> That is fine but consider the words on that web site carefully. they
> are:
>
> "It's a classic chicken-and-egg conundrum: Did the distant ancestors of
> land animals come
> ashore and then evolve legs, or did they evolve legs and then come
> ashore? This is a daunting
> question considering the fish-to-four-legs transition took place some
> 370 million years ago.
> For decades, the former proposition held sway: land first, then legs.
> But Jenny Clack changed all that.
>
> On an expedition to Greenland in 1987, this University of Cambridge
> paleontologist
> unearthed remains of a creature from the Devonian Period (408-360
> million years
> ago) that skulked around swamps on four legs. Through careful study of
> the
> anatomy, Clack determined that this creature, known as Acanthostega,
> nevertheless didn't have a leg to stand on -- that is, these rudimentary
> limbs could
> not support the animal's weight. But they do support the notion that
> legs came
> first. In this interview, Clack gives particulars of her field-shaking
> discovery and its impact."
>
>
> It does not say that Clack has shown how land animals evolved for sea
> animals. That is a GIVEN!
>
> What Clack has done is to replace one theory of how with another theory
> of how.
>
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/clack.html
> >
> > Also the link below, from Glenn Morton's site.You may want to email
> > the question to him. He can answer your question in detail.
> >
> > http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm
> >
> > Seek and ye shall find, Vern. The question is, do you really want to
> > find that for which you are seeking?
> >
> > .
> >
>
> How many people who believe in evolution are seeking a different answer?
>
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 21 2002 - 14:54:43 EDT