<<Why is it so difficult for us to admit that maybe we are not representing
the
data correctly? Why do you think that Denton and Johnson did a detailed job
of looking at the data? The very few observational facts (as opposed to
conclusions) which they cite are not correct. I would respectfully submit
that we Christians should do the utmost to represent the data as it really is
because simply honesty demands that.>>
Others have pointed out why your castigation of Johnson is less than
persuasive. And of course, as you admitted, this is only "corroborative"
evidence. You stated that, even if we admit a mistake, that should call into
question the rest of his work. This is an extremely weak argument. The logic
and abundance of correct citations in the book far overwhelm any minor
mistakes (if they indeed exist).
You didn't resond to Taylor's observation regarding the weakness of the
Darwinian record. He is most forthright in viewing the data.
<<To close, I really wish you would tell me in detail what my examples lacked
that make them not evidence of transitonal forms. >>
You're operating under a false view of evidence and a bad way of doing
science. You present a form as a "transition." I'm now supposed to argue that
this form must "lack" something, or else subscribe to your interpretation of
it? Afraid not. The experts don't do it this way. Ashby, Stephen Jones and
Kevin Wirth have offered some compelling citations which, at the very least,
show a much more incipient picture, according to the pros, than the one you're
painting.
I think the real question here is why you are so anxious to uphold what is, on
closer examination, a rather sketchy view. If you read Ashby's many citations,
you can see that the experts are much more provisional than you are. I can
admit to certain extremists in the Christian camp playing fast and loose with
the facts, and making claims that don't add up. But aren't you committing the
same error? The case for the "whale sequence" is much weaker than you first
asserted, as the statements of the experts illustrate. Why, then, do you hold
it up as the end of the argument? Why are you so anxious that evolution be
vindicated?
<< Frankly this whole thing
reminds me of those two kids in my home town who inhabited that ledge and
threw rocks at the kids below but could never be reached by rocks thrown from
below. >>
But what about the pebbles you toss at Denton and Johnson without ever dealing
with their CENTRAL arguments (even as you conveniently ignore those like
Taylor who are correct and compelling)? Your house, I suspect, may be made of
glass.
Jim