Susan:
Thanks for your response and references.
You wrote:
> "macro" and "micro" evolution loom large to creationists, but not to
> biologists. "Macro" evolution to a biologist is speciation. That was
> first observed to occur just after the turn of the 20th century. It
> was observed in the lab in the mid-fifties. *All* evolution is "micro"
> it is an accumulation of "micro" changes that eventually make
> something that looks "macro" if you compare creatures that live
> millions of years apart.
I note that the meaning of 'speciation' is far from clear. Does an
unambiguous definition exist? Perhaps you would direct me to the
observations to which you refer?
> ... All the observed speciation events occurred in isolated
> populations.
But how can this be known beyond shadow of doubt? Why are you so ready
to resort to hyperbole?
Regarding the alleged transition 'fish to amphibian', here are some
extracts I picked up from the Talk-Origins page:
1) The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to
scud around on the bottom in the water...
2) Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and
new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet...support this idea of an
"aquatic feet" stage.
3) If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than
terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might
be perfectly workable.
4) GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle
Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
5) ...the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments)
were probably almost totally aquatic...
These hardly constitute firm evidence for the *fact* of this particular
strand of evolution. On the contrary, for me they reveal an over-fertile
imagination in those whose minds are already made up!
Sincerely,
Vernon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 19 2000 - 18:06:15 EDT