<<You must be a good lawyer. You totally avoided my other question. What
would you consider to be the criteria for a gradual morphological change. If
you can not define what you believe will prove the case, you 1) will never
know if you find it, and 2) won't consider anything to be proof of gradual
transition.
I am not going to let you off this hook. You must tell me what
evidence would convince you that morphological change occurred. If you can't,
then you are merely playing games and not dealing with the data. What will
happen is that I will work my lil' ol' heart out, and you will sit back and
say "Not good enough!' So, what is the answer to this question?>>
Ah, now who is playing lawyer? It's wonderful how your questions assume the
answer (e.g., dealing with the data = morphological change; When did you stop
beating your wife?).
We have danced this dance already. I have suggested that the data does NOT
support large scale change (an interpretation). You brought up the "whale
sequence" and stratomorphic intermediates as "evidence" of the kind of change
at issue (an interpretation).
I have found Wise (TCH @ pp. 226-228) and Johnson (DOT2d @ pp. 86-87) with
arguments FROM the evidence TO a conclusion contrary to yours. I don't want
you to work that lil' ol' heart too much, but merely tell me how they are
mistaken.
I promise I will not sit back and say "Not good enough." I'll try to be
equally as direct, and hope others will join in as well.
Jim "Basilosaurus Breaker" Bell