dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/03/85)
>>>[Stanley Friesen] >>> Exactly as expected under evolutionary theory! the first of >>> a series of intermediates will *natuallly* resemble the source group >>> more than the end group! All this says is that the Hyrax is a modern >>> member of the horse ancestral group. It is also perfectly acceptible >>> for an ancestral form to continue along side of its decendants. The >>> only evidence which would contradict the basic series is for a modern >>> horse(Equus) to be found in Eocene sediments. Also has the possibility >>> of "reworked" fossils been ruled out in the "modern" Eohippus specimens. >> [Paul DuBois] >>If reworking is to be claimed, the burden of proof is on the one >>making the claim to demonstrate it. Failing that, one may show that the >>original investigators haave not considered this as a possibility. >>Although both of these are possible accounts, you have shown neither. > You missed my main point, which is that co-occurance of > ancestor/descendant pairs are entirely compatible with current > evolutionary theory. The reworking comment was more along the lines > of a postscript or addendum. I suppose that they are also not incompatible with creation...but, anyway, to more important things: >>> You forgot an alternative, the convolutions could be inherited >>> from a common ancestor, perhaps the basic pattern of brain convolutions >>> was established *before* the split between horse and cow. >>I didn't forget. But just how likely does it seem to you that two >>independent lines of development from a smooth-brained ancestor with no >>convolutions, to two different animals with convolutions, will result >>in EXACTLY the same number of fissures, and that all 14 will be in >>corresponding locations? I confess skepticism (that healthy quality so >>highly touted). > This is not what I said, I said "inherited from a common > ancestor", which means that the said common ancestor *also* had > *exactly* the same convolations. Your response is more appropriate > to a "parallel evolution" scenario. It is true that that is not what you had said, but in light of the fact that early horse *did* have smooth brains, I made a stronger statement, one which ruled out the possibility of an ancestor with the basic pattern of convolution already laid down. The statement still seems to me a valid one. So I'm still skeptical. You're right, parallel evolution would be more in order - and what I said was that it must have been a marvelous coincidence. Hence my skepticism. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "The presence of weeds in the garden is not explained by | saying that the gardener has not pulled them yet."