Re: transitional fossils

Re the "change we observe is minor". While "minor" is a pretty
subjective term, let's take any given time frame for these minor change
for reference. Multiply it by some number N. How big does N have to be
before the cumulative changes over the end-to-end period of N reference
time frames are no longer minor? JimA

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> "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 <mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> To: Cornelius Hunter <mailto:ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net> ;
> asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <http://autos.yahoo.ca>
>
Received on Mon Dec 5 21:27:18 2005