Re: re-whales from rodents
John W. Burgeson (email@example.com)
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:40:28 -0600
You asked for comments from others so here is mine. From the quote you
included it looks to me like Johnson is saying that evolutionist argue
whales came from rodents, and as to whether or not he believes it appears
be only implied to the negative, i.e. I don't think he does believe it.
he believed it he probably would not be challenging evolutionists to
it. So since he appears to be asking evolutionists to explain this
transition, it being an example of a type of morphological transformation
which he doesn't think has or can (I don't know which) happen, ne must
they (the evolutionists) believe it did happen. If he didn't think the
evolutionists believed in this transition there would be no reason to
challenge them to explain it.
That's about the way I read it also. Johnson may be properly chastised,
it appears, for using as an example of what he sees as silly thinking by
evolutionists an example 20 years out of date, but that seems to me to be
a trivial chide. As I understand it, at one time the "rodent to whale"
line WAs espoused as, at least, a valid hypothesis; the apparent fact
that it is not now regarded as a valid hypothesis does not change the
thrust of Johnson's argument; using a more recent example would have been
better, but then, of course, 20 years from now he'd be out of date again!
< G >
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.