lew@ihlpa.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (03/13/85)
It seems to me that you shifted gears in your reply. First it was, "Extra! Extra! get your red hot ad hoc hypotheses ..." and "Extra! Extra! Evolution is true - it must be so because we all say so!" ... and you wonder what I mean by "quote attack" ! Now it's "Evolution in the broad sense, from molecules to man, is not absolutely testable." Well Ken there's an awful lot of ground between ad hoc hypotheses and absolute testability. Obviously you realize this, but then why do you vacillate so? To get to some of your substantive points: you say it's a materialist presumption that mammals MUST have evolved since there was a time when there were none. But the mammals didn't spring full blown into the fossil record. There was a time when there were a few basic forms, and a time after that with elaborations of these forms, and a time after THAT when some of these forms radiated into fantastic varieties. Also, before the mammals there were the therapsids. Furthermore, the mammals are only one example of a new class appearing in the fossil record. If you want to argue for many special creations taking place at different times over billions of years, fine. But let's be clear about the FACTS of earth history. In your original article you ridiculed the notion of a reptilian ancestry of birds with your sarcastic remark: "Of course true-believers, in the meantime keep checking Frank Purdue's chickens for teeth." Well, the ever-doubting E. J. Kollar and C. Fisher (SCIENCE 207:993, 1980) have done just that - and found them! As recounted by Futuyma in SCIENCE ON TRIAL, they were able to induce embryonic tissue from the jaw of a chicken to develop teeth. I think it likely that as chromosomal mapping techniques become more and more sophisticated a whole panoply of ancestral genes will be revealed in many organisms. Would this count as evidence, Ken? Enough for now. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihlpa!lew