hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/26/85)
_______________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. DuBois, > { from: Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois } > > > { from: Jeff Sonntag } > > > > Paul Dubois, writing on the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie > > evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out: Indeed, quite a GROSS ERROR. > > > Evolutionists developed the idea. Some evolutionists realize this, some > > > (as, apparantly, Bill) do not. Some creationists realize this, some do > > > not. Some creationists realize that it is not necessary to evolutionary > > > theory, some do not. > > > > > > But whether the idea is true or not, it *is* the case that a number of > > > proposed intermediates have been rejected as such (by evolutionists) on > > > the basis of EXACTLY the above reasoning: a form is not transitional to > > > another form if it exists contemporaneously with it. Lungfish, for > > > example. My beloved coelecanth, for another. Archaeopteryx is under > > > the same pressure since the discovery of other fossils which are clearly > > > birds contemporary to it. Since you make the original claim, why don't you give us the actual inter- mediates that were rejected. And for some comparison (just so we are not misled by possibly rhetorical statements), why don't you give us the num- ber of proposed intermediates that WERE accepted. > > It really doesn't matter *who* has accepted the idea that a form > > is not transitional to another form if they exist contemporaneously. > > The idea simply doesn't stand up to examination. > > Fine. > I was not concerned to demonstrate the validity or invalidity of the > idea that when species evolve the parent species must die. I was > concerned to demonstrate that the idea did not originate with > creationists, so it is an evolutionist FALLACY to imply that it did. So what does this do for creationism? (Gee, this question seem so familiar; it's because creationists seem to try to do anything to make evolution look bad, no matter how ridiculously illegitimate the examples they dig up.) Once again, you have proved my long- standing point that creationists do not concern themselves too much with substantiating their own theory. They (out of wishful thinking) believe that they can simply try to "make swiss cheese" out of evo- lution, and they fail miserably. Why do you think scientists are so impatient with creationists?! > Really, for all the times that we hear in this newsgroup that > creationists attack a mistaken notion of what evolutionists believe, > I sometimes wonder if even evolutionists know what evolutionists > believe. This is not substantiated, since you are suggesting that we follow exactly same ideas and concepts as those who made the errors. Since we know better, our conceptions must differ. > > Archaeopteryx may or may not have been > > the link between reptiles and birds, but the fact that Archaeopteryx > > hadn't died out before birds developed HELPS TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT > > ARCHAEOPTERYX was the parent specie. > > That fact alone has nothing to do with support for your contention. Excuse me, but ... he did include the word "helps", and in capital letters no less. Thus, he is correct, and your first sentence here is meaningless. > It must be bolstered by additional assumptions. Is that what you use to support your assertions? ASSUMPTIONS? There are not too many assumptions that you can legitimately use in science. I think the words "facts" and "evidences" are more appropriate here. > Other possibilities, > equally plausible from the sequence in the rocks, are that both > descended from common ancestors, or that Archaeopteryx descended from > more well-developed birds (e.g., McGowan thinks the Ostrich degenerated > from more well-developed birds) or that Archaeopteryx and other birds > have no common ancestor. Which of these are inconsistent with the > fossils, or less consistent with the idea you claim they support? Well ... gee ... we could always guess that (this is equally possible given the fossil record only) that there was some creator who made a few primitive things, allow them to proliferate, destroy them or let them die out, create some more stuff, let them proliferate, destroy them or let them die out, and repeat again and again with increasingly higher-level constructions. This creator decided to overlap some of the time-spans of the creatures out of his own whim. He also made the fossils look like they were old when they were really very young; and to top things off, he made the configuration of the heavens like it was billions and billions of years old. Gee ... equally plausible ... wouldn't you say? After all, such an omnipotent creator could do anything he pleases, couldn't he? If you really believe a history similiar to the one I just describe, let me remind you that we are in the scientific realm (sorry, no hocus-pocus here!). If you see the scenario as ridiculous, go back to your last comment, and read them again. The degeneration suggestion still makes the Archaeopteryx an intermediate, perhaps making some of its seeming ancestors its descen- dents. Yet you certainly would not agree with this as you insisted that there are evidences to support some limit of variation of specie in a previous article. (You may change your mind, of course; no one will prevent you from doing that.) The creation suggestion is inconsistent with science. (As many creationists point out, random mixing of mole- cules does not produce an organism. This suggestion, then, is even more unlikely than evolution.) > > Birds could hardly have developed from Archaeopteryx if Archaeopteryx > > had died out before birds developed. It's almost a tautology. Yet > > Paul tries to get us to deny the possibility of Archaeopteryx's inter- > > mediate status (not solely) on the basis of it's contemporaneousness > > with birds, a fact which actually *lends support to* its intermedi- > > ate status! > > I did no such thing. I stated that the line of reasoning has been > used by *evolutionists* as evidence against certain forms being > transitional. Like I said, your reasoning is bunk since it does not apply to us. Remember, scientists do not claim to be absolutely correct. Scientists have assumed for a long time that the earth was flat. I suppose you want to criticize us for THAT too?! > > Just what would you require of an intermediate specie between > > birds and reptiles, Paul? You criticized Archaeopteryx's feathers > > as being almost identical with modern bird feathers. > > I didn't "criticize" the feathers. It's simply a fact. What do you > want me to say about them? That they're NOT identical with modern > bird feathers? The existence of feathers on the Archaeopteryxdoes not make it a bird. It gives it bird-like characteristics. Since monkeys have hair, aren't dogs really monkeys because they have hair, too?! (Not exactly sound reasoning, is it?!) > > You want maybe some sort of useless > > half-feather? Why would something like that be selected for? Why would > > you expect a specie with useless features to survive long enough to leave > > any kind of fossil record? I would not agree with this question by Jeff. Seemingly useless features does not necessarily mean that the features will evolve away or evolve into something useful. > Like the Irish Elk? > > I assume from what you say that we *wouldn't* expect intermediate > features, that we must go from one developed structure to another > - no incipient features. Would we, then, expect instantaneous > appearance of fully developed feathers? Anything less would not be > selected for? Or what? I don't think that is what he means. I believe he means that what you will see in the fossil record is something far more consistent with the idea of puntuated equilibria rather than gradualism. The useless half-feather is a possible intermediate between feather and non-feather (though not necessarily the only possible intermediate), and its appearance in the fossil record would be brief, if at all. Features that aid in the better survival of an organism would cer- tainly show better in the fossil record as the organism tend to survive longer, and thus proliferating their abundant "future fossils". If only a handful slowly develope a neutral characteristic, I truly doubt if there would be too many fossil survivors. Please read my next article on transitional forms. _______________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }