Janet Rice (
Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:29:40 -0700

Glenn, you wrote

>I can point to a set of rocks which contains the fossil forms, I can tell you
>about the similarities in the fossils from fish to tetrapod, the fact that
>panderichthyid fish lost all but four fins under their bodies, had lungs and
>gills, had the humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and
>fibula in the hindlimb. The earliest tetrapods had the same, lungs and gills
>except the fins were now fitted at the end with up to 8 "fingers". But their
>legs could not support their weight and did not have full motion. They had
>half evolved legs. The skulls of fish and amphibian were nearly identical. The
>transition is quite fascinating. AND IT WAS REAL HISTORY.

I have followed the discussions on this reflector as a lurker since none of
this is remotely my field (I'm a physical metallurgist). But one of the
things I am told by people who do not subscribe to evolution, even as a
thoery, is that there are NO transitional forms in the fossil record to
support macroevolution. So, and this is meant not as a smart aleck
question, but asked out of genuine ignorance - is the question of
transitional forms one of interpretation - two people look at the same data
and come to different conclusions?

Janet Rice

Janet Rice