dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/25/85)
> In article <975@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >>>>>> For example, if a limb were to evolve into a >>>>>> wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a >>>>>> good wing. > [Mike Huybensz] > Here Paul is (for convenience perhaps) speaking as if evolution is true. I'm sorry, but it was someone else. >>>>> Try telling that to flying squirrels and see how far it gets you. >>>> >>>>[DuBois] >>>>Try asking them to really fly and see how far it gets you. What, do >>>>you think they have "wings"? > Here Paul is asking for criteria that he should have specified himself. > Such as what makes a wing, or what makes a bad limb. My dictionary gives > as examples of wings the structures of flying fish and flying lemurs, > which can only glide like flying squirrels. I'll go one better. *My* dictionary lists under "wing": "...any of certain other wing-like structures of other animals, as the patagium of a flying squirrel", so I think that I ought cheerfully admit my error, though that is against Robert's Creationist Rules of Order, and may well cost me my license in the Hard Core Die Hard Creationist Society (one of the conditions of membership is that One Shalt Not Admit Error). Oops! >>> [Isaac Dimitrovsky] >>> The point of the flying squirrel example is NOT that the squirrel can >>> really fly. After all, if it could, you would just say it was an example >>> of an animal with a fully developed wing. The point of the example is >>> precisely that the squirrel can't fly. In other words, it may be useful >>> to an animal to have a limb which is both a bad wing and a reasonably >>> good limb. In other other words, at least in the case of wings, >>> it is possible to have intermediate forms which are useful for >>> gliding and short flights but are not capable of full flight. And, at >>> least in this case, I don't think you can dispute that this point has >>> been established. Can you? > An excellent and well justified point. Isaac (for convenience perhaps) > uses the term "intermediate" which is based on evolutionary assumptions, > and which wasn't necessary to his rebuttal. I don't see any evolutionary assumptions in Isaac's paragraph. Maybe they are there, but not necessarily so. You said yourself (below) that Isaac was talking in *functional* terms. ??? >> I will not dispute that they can glide and that they are not capable of >> full flight. That is obvious. I am of course unconvinced that they >> are intermediates (that is, intermediates which developed from a >> non-intermediate). > Here Paul attacks because Isaac used the same evolutionary context that > Paul did. Paul is criticizing the idea of a historical intermediate, > while the example in question is a FUNCTIONAL intermediate. Which Paul > said would be a "bad limb" before it would be a good wing. Perhaps Paul > would like to explain why.... I did not attack his arguement for using the same context as I did, because I didn't make the statement attributed to me. The original discussion was predicated on the notion of historical intermediates. I agreed that the squirrel structures are functionally intermediate. The question was whether it had any evolutionary development or significance. Changing the basis of the discussion does not answer that question. >> The skin flaps are not wings and there is no >> evidence that they ever will be. There is also (as far as I am aware) >> no evidence that they ever were anything but skin flaps. > Bat wings (by that same standard) are nothing but skin flaps. I think > Paul needs to choose a better definition for "wings" than "anything > Paul chooses to call wings and nothing else." By that standard, so are duck feet and elephant ears. But as observed above, according to my dictionary, I was in error in saying that they are not wings. However, I still stand on the other statements. Without evidence of historical development, functional intermediality is unconvincing evidence of evolution. Hence, the last statement of the following... > I also responded to Paul's request for intermediates, with examples from > the Dryinidae (wasps) and the Glycypagid subfamily Ewinginae (hermit crab > mites.) And another person brought up the intermediates between reptilian > and mammalian inner ear bones. The fact is that there are innumerable > examples of functional intermediates, that are best explained as relicts > of historical intermediate ancestors. is unconvincing. Anyway, please give the references, so I can go read about them...perhaps you shall convince me after all. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |