No. That is why I cited the Whale sequence. Are you trying to say that the
Whale transition is not a major (or would not be a major) transition from one
group to another? Most creationists and evolutionists agree that it is a
major change of morphology. It is attested to by a fairly complete sequence
of fossils each only a small step from the previous one. This is not leaping
from bird beak changes to Land-to-marine morphologies.
I wrote:
<<I mentioned the footed ness of the whale transtion. Does that in your view
constitute a transtion? If not why not?>>
Jim Responded
"Because it assumes connection (the Whale TRANSTION... When did you stop
beating your wife, Glenn?), when there are strong reasons to doubt that very
thing."
O.K. If you want to be that picky. Does the whale {series, fossils,
skeletons, mineralize-calcium carbonate endoskeletons, thingies, do-bobs, dead
matter, or bvskdhfishdkfhj} (take your pick!!!!) constitute a valid
transition???If not, why not? I do not know how many ways I can ask that
question further.
You quoted Johnson:
"{T}he problems {for whale evoluton} are immense. WHales have all sorts of
complex equipment to permit deep diving, underwater communication by sound
waves, and even to allow the young to suckle without taking in sea water.
Step by step adaptive development of each one of these features presents the
same problem discussed in connection with wings and eyes... Even the vestigial
legs present problems. By what Darwinian process di useful limbs wither away
to vestigial proportions, and at what stage in the transformation from rodent
to sea monster did this occur? Did rodent forelimbs transform themselves by
gradual adaptive states into whale flippers? We hear nothing of the
difficulties because to Darwinists unsolvable problems are not important." P.
86-87"
The first place, that Johnson is wrong, is that whales did not evolve from
rodents, they evolved from Mesochynids. They are very, very different.
Secondly, useful legs did not go away by a Darwinian process. Useless legs
went away by a Darwinian process. An animal which must swim to catch food is
less able to do it with those useles-in-the-water legs. Ah, but fins. That
is another matter. So, I have already given you two places Johnson is wrong.
Your quotation from Johnson inadvertently answered one of my questions. How
many fossils do you beleive are necessary to prove a transition. The answer
Johnson is giving is boiled down to its essence. "Just one more."