Also, the question of randomness was not "dealt" with, either. So we'll have
to leave these hapless Bridge players to escape Russia on their own.
I then wrote, regarding the record: "We should at least be able to find
thousands of "hands" that have progressively more "clubs," shouldn't we?"
Glenn asserts: "There are thousands of examples of gradual change in the
fossil record."
And then anticipates the obvious answer: "This is only small,
micromutational change, big deal. This does not prove large change."
That, indeed, is the answer, as admitted by many evolutionists, e.g.:
"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of
intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long-term gradual transformations of
single lineages are reare and generally involve simple size increase or
trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive
ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and
unconnected by intermeidiates." (Maynard-Smith, J., ed. "Evolution Now: A
Century after Darwin", 1982, p. 163)
"Many biologists, while ready to accept that neo-Darwinism explains minor
changes in structure, changes of color and so forth, are skeptical of its
ability to explain those sweeping changes of plan such as the rise of
terrestrial creatures from fishes, or of fishes from the spineless jellyfish
and starfish which preceded them." (G.R. Taylor, "The Great Evolution
Mystery," 1982, p. 10).
Taylor, rejecting gradualism due to lack of evidence, went so far as to admit
that the record looks like it was "directed" by some force yet unknown to
science and (grudgingly) admitted it could be interpreted by some as "divine."
(Id. at pp. 6 & 245).
Honesty is the best policy, in cards and biology.
Jim