Re: Evolution: A few questions

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 18:18:55 EDT

Hi, Dave,

Thank you for this interesting illustration. However, just a few points:

1) Your reference to 'down time' is hardly relevant to the matter under
discussion, for I am not claiming that fins cease to function while legs
develop, but simply that they must lose their effectiveness because of the
hydro-dynamic impediments (eg swellings and protrusions) that must herald
the presumed changes.

2) What you have written brings back memories of Haeckel's infamous
embryos and the concept of recapitulation. Clearly, all that is in evidence
here is an inbuilt programme of development that takes us from a fish-like
form to frog in a relatively brief span of time. The suggested extrapolation
is, I believe, invalid.

3) I am intrigued by your closing paragraph. You question: why would
God have to work out a series of intermediate creatures leading up to the
current forms? As a TE (please correct me if I am wrong) you believe that
man has appeared on the world scene by a divinely-ordained process of
evolution. Presumably, with this ultimate end in view, He either
front-loaded all the necessary information for such an outcome into the
first living cell, or otherwise constantly maintains a controlling hand on
all that transpires. This being so, I can surely put the same question to
you: why would God have to work out a series of intermediate creatures
leading up to the current forms? Why all the carnage over a vast period of
time? Is our God incapable of creating all living forms, together with those
represented in the fossil record, simultaneously, in one mighty operation?
In the Scriptures, God has revealed what actually happened way back. He can
hardly be held responsible for the errors of those who have chosen to


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <>
To: <>
Cc: <>; <>;
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions

> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:38:18 +0100 "Vernon Jenkins"
> <> writes:
> > 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. 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). 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Vernon
> >
> Vernon,
> Seems to me that you are adopting a remodeling model for creaturely
> change. It is certain that, if I decide to remodel the kitchen, normal
> activity will cease. Dishes, utensil, tools, etc., will have to be moved
> out so that cabinets and appliances can be taken out and new ones
> installed. The kitchen will be down for a period.
> However, I recall a remodeling during which every meal was prepared in
> the functional kitchen and eaten in the attached breakfast nook. What had
> been a service porch with stationary tubs and washing machine (before the
> days of dryers) became part of the kitchen, with floor to ceiling
> cabinets to serve as a pantry. The kitchen appliances did not have to be
> moved or replaced, of course.
> In contrast even to a benign remodel, let me note what happens during the
> metamorphosis of a frog. The embryo hatches and begins to grow as a
> purely aquatic form, breathing through gills. It strips algae off
> supports or consumes eggs or other tadpoles. With every original part
> fully functional, the tadpole sprouts legs, first rear, then front. Only
> when the legs are fully functional for swimming does the tail resorb.
> While the external changes are taking place, lungs are developing within.
> With the lungs fully developed, the gills are lost. But. at the same
> time, the small frog can "breathe" through its skin. Without impeding
> feeding, another change within produces a tongue capable of catching
> insects. The aquatic tadpole has become a frog capable of swimming in the
> water or hopping on land with no down time at all.
> It does not matter, in the developmental process, whether it is an
> individual creature or a sequence of evolving creatures, there is no down
> time while some early part is taken out and a later part installed. You
> cannot force the way humans remodel houses with natural development of
> living things.
> Note that I am not claiming that all metamorphosing follows the amphibian
> pattern. I understand that pupating insects dissolve the larval organs
> and form new organs for the adult. This occurs, necessarily, during a
> resting stage. But not all insects pupate. And pupation is not relevant
> to a sequence of creatures.
> Your suggestion that intermediates are special creations raises a
> question: why would God have to work out a series of intermediate
> creatures leading up to current forms? I think of only two answers.
> Either God produced these forms so that sincere men would think that they
> had evolved, or God wasn't bright enough to design and produce the final
> forms directly. A deceitful deity or a stupid deity are not what I find
> revealed in scripture.
> Dave
Received on Sun Jun 20 18:33:33 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 20 2004 - 18:33:37 EDT