RE: Evolution: A few questions

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Sat Jun 19 2004 - 18:11:44 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vernon Jenkins []
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 4:38 PM
> To: Glenn Morton;;
> Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions
> Glenn,
> My disappointment with your recent answer stems from the fact
> that you appear unable to see the simple point I am
> attempting to make. Every major evolutionary sequence (eg
> fish>amphibian) has, necessarily, a beginning, a period of
> development, and an end.

I don't believe that is true. Every transition is part of a continuum,
indeed a continuum of transitions, not some building which is erected
whose work is finished at a definite point in time.

What concerns me - and, I believe,
> Jason also - are the earliest stages of this alleged process,
> when the normal functions of the creature concerned must be
> impeded (and thereby diminished) by changes which, though
> possibly producing a selective advantage in the long run,
> render it particularly vulnerable to extinction at the time
> (and continuing).

The earliest transitional legs of the amphibians enabled the animals to
lift themselves up a bit but also to propel themselves through the
water. There is no loss of function, just an addition to the function of

I am suggesting, therefore, that to take as
> your starting point a new structure that is already 'up and
> running' misses the whole thrust of the argument.

I don't believe I discussed a system that is already up and running.
Your quotation around those words is inappropriate because they are not
quotes from my note. The arms I described in my last note were not 'up
and running'. They couldn't fly. They could propel the animal a bit more
and help the animal escape predation. As time went on, those with the
best ability to avoid being eaten were able to pass on their better
genes and those genes took the animal into flight.

> Logically, I suggest, the alleged transition could never have
> taken place; thus the 'intermediates' found in the fossil
> record are, I believe, more reasonably explained as special creations.

This is a belief but not a logical deduction.
Received on Sat Jun 19 18:45:59 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 19 2004 - 18:45:59 EDT