Wait a minute. If the authors clearly state that their conclusion is
unproven, why should we accept their conclusion as proven? This seems very
strange. If they do not believe that there is proof of a tetrapod making the
tracks, upon what basis do you override their decision and conclude that THEY
are wrong and these really are tetrapod tracks? Have you seen these tracks
and know something that the author's don't know? Have you corresponded with
the authors? I haven't so I will believe that what they say is true. This
is a possible, not probable and certainly not proven tetrapod track. It may
also be a panderichthyd track or even something that has not had skeletal
remains found.
Ashby wrote:
> Now compare this to the much lower standard of proof Glenn
used to assess evidence he believes favors evolution. When Coates
and Clack say that the hindlimb of _Acanthostega_ "could *probably*
not be brought into weight-bearing position," that the forearm
bones "*suggest* that the forelimb could never have flexed from the
elbow to be in a fully load-bearing posture," and that _Acantho-
stega_ "*seems* to have retained fish-like internal gills," this is
accepted as fact. If the creationist takes the same skeptical
approach to the conclusions of Clack and Coates that the evolution-
ist takes with regard to the conclusions of Warren, Jupp, and
Bolton, the creationist is considered "scientifically challenged."
There is an undeniable element of truth in Paul Simon's lyric, "A
man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." <
I am perfectly willing to listen to any creationist tell me why Coates and
Clack are in error. The problem is that no one other than you even mentioned
the forelimb. In all the bandwidth of posts which have flown over the past
few weeks, not one person, critical of my interpretation, has bothered to
discuss such details in spite of my enthusiastic requests for such
information. It would seem that if this data is so easily dismissed as being
eroneous someone could explain why in either technical or nontechnical terms.
But instead of discussing the data itself, I was told today to "quit being
so focused on the data!!!!" If I can't be focused on the data, is it
proposed that I be focused on someone's opinion?
While you mention the arm and say that I am accepting a lower standard of
evidence, you also have failed to say what is wrong with Coates and Clack's
conclusion. Why does the anatomical they cite not mean that the arm must be
horizontal? I am not an anatomist; I assume that they know something of
that subject. Whatever you tell me I will take to a good friend who teaches
anatomy at Baylor Dental school and ask his opinion of both sides. But
before I can do this, you must provide me with a criticism of Coates and
Clack's data. Why is eliciting detailed critiques so difficult?
Ashby writes:
>Third, there
is no reason to believe that the rhipdistians possessed the
stalking behavior of the fishes mentioned by Coates and Clack.
None of these fish are even in the same subclass (Sarcopterygii) as
the panderichthyids, and even if they were, it was Glenn who argued
(in criticizing Johnson) that one cannot attribute the traits of
modern creatures to their distant relatives. <
No, what I criticized Johnson for was stating that the Rhipidistian would
disappoint evolutionists like the coelacanth supposedly did. By doing this
he implying that that Rhipidistian disappointment was evidence for his case.
It isn't. It is a great lawyer trick for a jury and if I am ever in trouble
with the law, I want Phil Johnson to defend me (assuming he would :-) )
Ashby writes:
> Lastly, it strikes me as unfair to criticize creationist
authors for not addressing alleged transitional forms that did not
become known until after their books were written. I expect that
these new claims will be analyzed in future material. <
I agree, but some of this stuff was out before Johnson published his second
edition in 1993. Robert Carroll was the first reference in Ahlberg and
Miller and his work was from 1992. Polydactyly in the earliest amphibians
was known in 1990 prior to the publication of the first edition in 1991.
But there was no discussion whatsoever of the limb of the amphibians. The
skull similarities have been known as far back as I have Paleo books and that
goes back to 1925
I am not trying to say that an author must know everything. No author can do
that. But why is there no discussion of the limb features of the earliest
amphibians at all? Isn't the supposed development of the limbs crucial to the
case for evolution?
glenn