dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/10/84)
> [Ethan Vishniac] > > >> However, the best reading of the available evidence is that the common > >> ancestors of crocodiles and chickens lived in the Early Triassic, > >> whereas the lineage of snakes split off in the late Permian. > > >What evidence? Has a missing link been found? Or is this an > >interpretation forced by the presumption of evolution? > > This comment is strangely irrelevant to the argument I was addressing > here. Allow me to clarify. A creationist (I believe it was R. Miller) > noted that the biochemical evidence would lead an evolutionist to conclude > that chickens and crocodiles were more closely related to each other than > either was to lizards and snakes. However, *he claimed* evolutionists > would have expected that reptiles (such as crocodiles and snakes) ought > to be more closely related to each other than either one is to birds. > That is, he was asserting that evolution made a prediction on the > biochemical similarities of species which was clearly wrong. > My comment was that based on the fossil record, *and assuming evolution*, > people predicted exactly the relationship that the biochemists > have found. This therefore counts as a successful prediction that > followed from the theory of evolution. I'll return to this later. Well, my first thought was to quibble about *assuming evolution*, but as first thoughts often are, this one was incorrect, since it is reasonable to assume something and then see whether the assumption is consistent with the data (unless you assume a creator). However, Larry's point does have some merit, I think, and for this reason: The link *is* relevant, because without some demonstration in the fossil record of the relationship between crocodiles and chickens, the prediction is not based on any evidence. It's fine to *assume* that relationship, and also to note that from it a prediction may be made which is confirmed independently by biochemical investigations, but that is not evidence for the veracity of the initial assumption. The assumption is still an assumption. (unless you provide the fossil links, of course). You will, I think wish to dispute this, so I'll leave it at that. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois