Re: transitional fossils

"Doesn't morphological change imply 'evolution'?"

No, this does not imply evolution. This is a misunderstanding. The morphological change we observe is minor. As I pointed out, even evolutionists agree that the kinds of change we can directly observe in the field, and are evident in the fossil record, are not sufficient to explain macro evolution. In genetics we observe resistance to significant change. This is corroborated nicely in the fossil record.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Cornelius Hunter ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 3:02 PM
  Subject: Re: transitional fossils

  Is Cornelius really arguing against mutability or the idea that species change? Or is he just arguing against common descent as an objectionable scientific philosophy? Doesn't morphological change imply 'evolution'?

  Gregory

  P.s. I'm looking for something a little more substantial in response too.

  Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

  "It is false to claim that all species appear abruptly in the fossil record and then persist with little or no change. If we have good, detailed information for a fairly continuous section of time, we see some species that have little or no change, some species that vary a bit, and some that show clear trends. Any of these may also have a transition to a new species during the observed interval."

  Thanks. It would be nice, however, to know more about what you mean by
  "clear trends." Do you mean things like ring species or changes in
  foraminifera, radiolarians and diatoms? The diatom history clearly shows
  morophological change, but then again, no one would say they are no long
  diatoms. I'm looking for something a bit more substantial.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Mon Dec 5 19:04:27 2005