Re: evolution evidence
Kevin Wirth (kevin.wirth@accessone.com)
Mon, 26 Jun 95 20:43:30 PDT>To: Glenn.Morton@ORYX.COM
>From: kevin.wirth@accessone.com (Kevin Wirth)
>Subject: Re: evolution evidence
>
>Glenn writes,
>
>>Pardon me? In my Life Transitions post, I did not use a single
>>non-existent form. You must have missed that post and I would be happy to
>>send you another copy. But you will not find a single reference to a
>>non-existent fossil form in support of the transition from fish to amphibian
>>there.Every single form I mentioned was based upon an actual fossil which we
>>have in hand. If you have that post, then point out the relevant section in
>>which I referred to fossil material which does not exist!!
>
>My apologies for offending you in this matter. I was not suggesting that
YOU personally relied upon such explanations. It's just that so many other
do. Sorry.
>
>>I wrote :
>>>I really do not see evolution depending on the 'just-so-stories' (...) as
>>much as non-evolutionists want to believe.<
>>
>
>>Both of these remarks stem from the assumption that evolutionists fool
>>themselves into believing what they do. You are forgetting that I used to be
>>a YEC and believed that evolutionists fooled themselves and didn't deal with
>>data. But as I looked deeper and deeper into the details of what they were
>>saying I found that I was wrong and their data was supportive of their
>>contention.
>
>True. Yet, don't forget where I came from: I was once a full-blooded
evolutionist who couldn't uderstand why creationists couldn't "see" how
clearly the data spelled out E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N. Let's not also forget,
Glenn, that you can manipulate the data for evolution so that it *seems to*
speak eloquently for the theory. But that is more an artifact of masterful
manipulation than it is a compelling argument. The fact is, we don't have
enough data to really support the theory, and I have heard this admission
from people in every field who are far more capable of talking our ears off
on the subject than either you or I.
>
>>
>>You say I can't see other possibilities? How about the fact that earlier in
>>my life, I ghost wrote the evolution section for Josh McDowell's _REASONS_,
>>wrote 27 articles for various publications supporting young earth creationism,
>>and now have changed my views. Does that not count as'seeing other
>>possibilities?'Or am I only allowed to see the other possibilities that you
>>deem fit?
>
>I stand corrected! Obviously you can see other possibilities. But my
point still stands. There isn't enough compelling evidence to warrant the
acceptance of evolution. This isn't just what Kevin thinks. This is a
pattern of explanation which you can see for yourself in countless journal
articles in reputable scientific periodicals and manuscripts.
>
>>Kevin writes:
>>>As long as we continue to think there is a 'missing link' for any major group
>>-- we will continue to find candidates (whenever possible). The sad part is,
>>what if there never WERE any such candidates? The evidence (or lack of it)
>>indicates that this is very likely. There are so few candidates between the
>>major groups as it is that it's become a major embarassment.<
>
>Glenn responds:
>
>>Instead of merely pronouncing that there are no transitional forms, explain
>>why the features I laid out on the table for all to see in my Life Transition
>>post are not transitional? Do skull similarities not count as transitional?
>
>I say again: morphology is not a very solid indicator of relatedness. I
appreciate your explanation, but this IS my simple response to your effort.
There are plenty of life forms which share very similar shapes, but to infer
evolutionary *relatedness* from this presupposes that evolution is valid!
You can't argue that two critters must be related because they share similar
morphological traits. Sorry! Without compelling evidence for evolution,
similar morphology could just as easily be an indicator of a common
blueprint for two different animal types designed by a creator!
>
>Would anyone else reading this care to chime in here and add some examples
of morphologically similar critters who are *known* to be unrelated? (I
could do it, and will do so if need be, but also have a lot of other things
I need to tend to at the moment...).
>
>Glenn continues:
>
>>In what way? Do the fact that the earliest tetrapod feet do not have 5 digits
>>but have 11 not count as a transitional feature? Why not? Get into the
>>details rather than pronouncements from on high.
>
>Look, Glenn. I'm not making pronouncements *from on high* that are any
less specious than yours! Think about it. You say 11 toes means that a
critter must be transitional. I say, not necessarily. Sorry, but you'll
have to show me COMPELLING EVIDENCE for that transition before I'll accept
it. All you currently have is inference that this is the case, and what I'm
saying is, that isn't enough to pull it off. That's not enough to make the
case. There are critters with 11 toes and there are critters with 5 toes,
and nothing inbetween which we can point to an an indisputable transitional
series. Until then, please refrain from attempting to marginalize my
comments as being more lofty and generic than yours. It is YOUR job to
demonstrate the transition, not mine. Until you can do that, I'm not obliged
to feel even the slightest twinge of "omigosh, I could be wrong here...".
>
>Glenn continues...
>
>>I haven't heard you even mention the data I have advanced. If it is
wrong, >then show me where it is wrong. The belief in evolution is based
upon data. >To disprove it you must show where the data is wrong.
>
>No sir, I am not required to do this. The DATA isn't the problem. Stop
being so focused on the data. The problem is with HOW THE DATA IS
MANIUPLATED INTO A STORY. I would contest your proposal simply on that
basis. There is too much assumption. It's a misnomer folks, and please
don't fall victim to this as Glenn obviously has, to perceive the DATA as
EVIDENCE for evolution. It simply isn't the case. Why? Because (and this
is where most of us get hoodwinked...) the evidence is linked together by
assumptions. It cannot BE any other way! Glenn: Re-read Barbara Stahl.
She makes the point far better than I could. She cites example after
example of the fact that we simply do not have transitions for this and
transitions for that. Your detailed explanation of skull morphology may
very well include precise descriptions of available fossil data, but that
doesn't mean that we get to assume, extrapolate from them, or assume any
transitional relationships, does it? Well, I suppose you could make the
inference allright, but it sure doesn't mean that it's ACCURATE. It surely
doesn't mean that I MUST accept your explanation as EVIDENCE. You see how
this works? You can't mix BOTH evidence AND imagination and expect me to
accept this combination as EVIDENCE! Imagination is NOT evidence! It's a
story, Glenn!
>
>>
>>Kevin wrote:
>>
>>>You say 'the similarities and changes between the specimens found in the
>>fossil record behave as if there were intermediate species'. No they don't.
>>they don't *behave* that way. that *behavior* is simply a construct of the
>>way you have been trained to look at the evidence. You've been hornswaggled.
>>Because now, you simply CAN'T look at the evidence any other way.<
>>
>
>Glenn:
>
>>I always wondered how to spell hornswaggled. Thanks for showing me. :-)
>
>You're welcome. I'm not sure I spelled it correctly...
>
>Glenn:
>
>
>>Kevin wrote to the effect that not all fossils are found in proper
>>stratomorphic order.
>>Please be specific. Which ones don't appear in that order? You have stated
>>your conclusion here with no supporting evidence. I am interested in the
>>evidence. We had a report that tetrapod footprints were found in rocks older
>>than the fossils but a look at that evidence found it quite questionable.
>>The relevant tracks were on a rock of unknown origin and the tracks had no
>>toes, which is essential for a tetrapod. Thus, I would appreciate it if you
>>would be specific.
>
>I'll add mine, but first, is there anyone reading this who would care to
contribute anything?
>
>>Kevin Wirth wrote:
>>"But there are ALSO polystrate fossils which dip across alleged millions of
>>years of strata. What about them? Why just point out the fossils which fit
>>the theory?<
>>
>>Sorry, the only people who think that the strata cut by polystrate fossils,
>>took millions of years to be deposited are the young-earth creationists.
>>Evolutionists do not believe that those particular beds took millions of
>>years.
>
>Of course they wouldn't, once polystrate fossils are found in them...
>
>>and I have been unable to document a case where an evolutionist stated
>>that these fossils took millions of years to form. The trees wouldn't last
>>that long. The young earth creattionist reasoning is as follows:
>>"Evolutionists believe that only .3 inch every thousand years is deposited.
>>This tree is 12 feet high. Therefore it would take 480,000 years to cover the
>>tree. Those stupid evolutionists."(the number .3 inch per 1000 years is only
>>an example and the value varies from basin to basin)
>>
>>The problem with the creationist logic here is that the evolutionist believes
>>that the AVERAGE rate is .3 inch /1000 years. This is not a set of
handcuffs >which says that never and nowhere can the rate of sedimentation
exceed that >value.
>
>Agreed.
>
>The YEC's want to make it a set of handcuffs but it isn't.
>>Several farmer's fields were destroyed at the confluence of the Mississippi
>>and Missouri rivers in 1993 by the floods. Six feet of sand were dumped on
>>some fields during the 2 months of flooding.
>>To use the same logic above that flood must have taken 240,000 years!!! Last
>>time I checked it only took 2 months. Also any tree buried by that flood is
>>in serious danger of becoming a future polystrate fossil. The tree will be
>>rooted in the clay soils of the farmer's field, but will extend up into the
>>next strata, the strata of sand. In a few thousand years, we can safely
>>conclude that those Missouri polystrate, fossil trees prove a young earth.
>
>OK. Well, I'll have to do some digging on this one...For now, I gotta go...
>
>I still maintain that you are at risk of seeing what you expect to see and
will *find* what your predisposition tells you to expect.
>
>
>Kevin.
>
Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE