This is a bounced message, re-sent. Apologies if you get it twice.
On Sun, 25 Jun 1995 21:03:53 -0400 you wrote:
>Jim Bell wrote:
JB>Hmm, let's see. We have, what, two or three of these particular
>fossils in a record that should be absolutely replete with them? I
>think the bigger question for anyone looking at the data objectively
>would be WHY ARE THERE ONLY TWO OR THREE? WHERE THE HECK ARE THE
>HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO FIND IF EVOLUTION IS
>TRUE?
GM>My problem is NOT that there is only one or two transitions. My
>problem is that there are transitional form after transitional form
>regardless of what our Christian apologetical books say. Our are not
>correct! I documented two such transitions but there are lots more.
As Jim points out there should be hundreds of thousands "more". Since
there would have to be hundreds, if not thousands of intermediate
forms on the way to making each new macro-evolutionary change, and
since all these intermediates would themselves have descendents, one
would expect they would have been very numerous. Darwin recognised
this as *the* major difficulty of his theory:
"These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following
heads: First, why, if species have descended from other species by
fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional
forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species
being, as we see them, well defined?" (Darwin C., "The Origin of
Species", Everyman's Library, 1967, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London,
p156).
GM>My problem is that what the apologetical books have told me about
>geology and paleontology have not been correct.
It's not the "apologetical books" fault. They simply quote leading
evolutionists like Gould who claim there are *very few* transitional
forms:
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though
it remains the `official' position of most Western evolutionists.
Smooth intermediates between Bauplne are almost impossible to
construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no
evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like
Archaeopteryx do not count)." (S. J. Gould and Niles Eldredge,
"Punctuated Equilibria", Paleobiology 3:147, 1977)
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt." (Gould S.J., "The Return of
the Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, Penguin, London,
p157).
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees
that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their
branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence
of fossils." (Gould S.J., "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary
Change", "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, Penguin, London, pp150-151).
In fact Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibria was developed for the
main reason to explain why we find very few transitional forms in the
fossil record:
"I want to argue that the "sudden" appearance of species in the fossil
record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within
them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand
it...If evolution almost always occurs by rapid speciation in small,
peripheral isolates-rather than by slow change in large, central
populations-then what should the fossil record look like? We are not
likely to detect the event of speciation itself. It happens too fast,
in too small a group, isolated too far from the ancestral range. We
will first meet the new species as a fossil when it reinvades the
ancestral range and becomes a large central population in its own
right. During its recorded history in the fossil record, we should
expect no major change; for we know it only as a successful, central
population.". (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", 1977, Penguin,
pp61-62)
So the first thing we need to clear up is who is right, you or Gould?
<g>
GM>Why do the apologetical books not go into the detail I went into to
>show why an animal with both lungs and internal gills is not a transitional
>form? Those books don't even mention that Acanthostega has both gills and
>lungs. Why? Would that information make people think that Acanthostega was
>a transitional form?
I don't want to defend everything that creationists have written, or
what they don't write. But "the apologetical books" you refer to are
defending creationism and opposing evolution. Some of them "go into
the detail", eg. Gish, "Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record"
(1986). They cannot deal with every claimed transitional form. The
ones they refer to are presumably the ones evolutionists have put up
in the past. No doubt as evolutionists claim new transitional forms
(eg. "Acanthostega"), then they will address these from their
creationist perspective.
It is as unrealistic to expect creationists to support evolution's
claims as it is to expect evolutionists to support creationists'
claims. Each genuinely do not see the other as being right.
GM>The issue is not why would God not be able to create just these
>forms, He could do that easily. But why do I find numerous
>transitional forms, which anti-evolutionists, like you, never
>mention?
Glenn, it up to you to put up your best evidence to support evolution.
I don't notice you putting up evidence specifically to support
creationism! <g>
>You wrote:
JB>"Next, I'd ask what is wrong with the explanation that God created
>these forms? Why is this explanation rejected out of hand?"
GM>God can do what ever He choses to do. But how far do you want to
>take this reasoning? I could ask you why you don't believe that God
>created the world as it is 5 minutes ago? Why is this explanation
>rejected out of hand?
Jim is talking about "these forms". ie. the ones you are putting up
as evidence for evolution. He is not talking about the creation of
the world. He asked you, "why is this explanation", ie. that God
created *these forms*, "rejected out of hand"? I would have thought
that is a fair question and that you could give it a fair answer.
GM>What do you see as the difference between these two competing
>explanations?
The evolution explanation endeavours to account for the development of
life without reference to the supernatural activity of a Creator. The
Creationist explanation endeavours to show that the Creator was
supernatural involved in the development of life.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------