Re: transitional fossils

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Tue Dec 06 2005 - 10:02:50 EST

Funny but the fossil records tells me something different. Can you explain why I only found one type of Precambrian fossil as if there had been little change I should have found many fossils in those strata?

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Cornelius Hunter
  To: ASA
  Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 1:12 PM
  Subject: Re: transitional fossils

  No, that is not what the evidence is telling us. The fossil record sometimes shows us minor morphological change for long time periods. In other words, the fossil record is giving us the kind of resolution we would need to test evolution. What we see is little or no change for long periods, even 500 million years in the case of, say, sipunculan worms. The minor change that we do observe is not what evolutionists need for their theory. Even they agree that, qualitatively, we would something else. We are learning from genetics how much change is resisted, and this is corroborated by the fossil record.

    Re the "change we observe is minor". While "minor" is a pretty subjective term, let's take any given time frame for these minor change for reference. Multiply it by some number N. How big does N have to be before the cumulative changes over the end-to-end period of N reference time frames are no longer minor? JimA
Received on Tue Dec 6 10:18:54 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 06 2005 - 10:18:54 EST