Re: fish and the flood

Glenn Morton (
Sun, 05 Apr 1998 14:29:29 -0500

Ron Chitwood wrote:

>GM>>>>So from what I gather, you are saying that the fossil record is
>incomplete and the modern fish genera remain to be found. In that case, why
>can't the evolutonist say that the transitional forms remain to be found<<<<

>macroevolutionists can and do. Why do you say I do not allow that. All I
>am asking for is to use the same speculative deductions you have since
>Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species'. In the case of current writings,
>however, the case for macroevolution is getting dimmer and dimmer. Else
>why would Gould articulate 'punctuated equilibrium' or Crick and others
>support panspermia. To quote Behe again, THE BLACK BOX, pp 22, "Thus
>biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin. Anatomy is, quite
>simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on
>the molecular level. So is the fossil record."

Since Behe doesn't deal with the fossil record I fail to understand the
relevance of Behe to a discussion of why modern fish are not found in the
fossil record. This seems very evasive. I will ask my question again. Do
you believe that the fossil record is complete or not. If it is complete,
then where are the modern genera of fish if the flood deposited the sediments?

>GM>>>Not true. The one found in Madagascar is 5 ft long and the fossil ones
>> much smaller and are in different genera.<<<
>GM>>>The coelacanthiform, Latimera, the animal you refer to above is in the
>> species Latimera. Latimera has no fossil record and thus is NOT an index
>> fossil as you state<<<

>Apparently the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, too.

I would suggest that either you are misunderstanding what it says, or that
you misunderstand the difference between order and genera. An order is a
higher level classification, a genus is a lower level class. Carnivora (an
order of the mammals have been on earth for around 60 million years, but
Canis--wolves, doglike animals etc-- (a genera of carnivora) has only been
on earth for the past 8 million years. Carnivora is to Canis as as Colacanth
is to Latimera. Latimera has no fossil record. Here is a detailed look at
your citation from the Encylcopedia.

><Picture>any of the lobe-finned bony fishes of the order Crossopterygii.
>Members of the related but extinct suborder Rhipidistia are considered to
>have been the ancestors of land vertebrates. In some systems of
>classification, the coelacanths and rhipidistians are considered separate
>orders, members of the subclass Crossopterygii.

Nothing here about the modern coelacanth being identical to the fossil versions.

><Picture>Modern coelacanths are deep-sea fishes of the family Latimeriidae.
>The name refers to their hollow fin spines (Greek: koilos, "hollow";
>akantha, "spine"). The modern coelacanths are bigger than most fossil
>coelacanths and are powerful predators with heavy, mucilaginous bodies and
>highly mobile, limblike fins. They average 5 feet (1.5 m) in length and
>weigh about 100 pounds (45 kg).

Nothing here about the modern coelacanth being identical to the fossil versions.
In fact, it says the modern form is DIFFERENT from the fossil form and
places that difference at the FAMILY level. Coelacanth is an Order, one
taxonomic level above family.

><Picture>Coelacanths appeared about 350 million years ago and were abundant
>over much of the world; the genus Coelacanthus has been found as fossils in
>rocks from the end of the Permian, 245 million years ago, to the end of the
>Jurassic, 144 million years ago. Coelacanthus, like other coelacanths,
>showed a reduction in bone ossification and a general trend toward a marine
>mode of life away from the earlier freshwater environment.

Nothing here about the modern coelacanth being identical to the fossil versions.
Coelacanthus is not the modern genera--Latimera is. So your encyclopedia
seems to be saying the same thing I am--that the ancient forms and the
modern forms are different.

><Picture>It was long supposed that coelacanths became extinct about 60
>million years ago, but in 1938 a living member (Latimeria chalumnae) was
>netted in the Indian Ocean near the southern coast of Africa. Rewards were
>offered for more specimens, and in 1952 a second (named Malania anjouanae
>but probably not separable from Latimeria) was obtained from near the
>Comoros Islands. Several others have been caught in that area. It was later
>discovered that these fishes were well known to the islanders, who
>considered the flesh edible when dried and salted; the rough scales were
>used as an abrasive.

Nothing here about the modern coelacanth being identical to the fossil versions.

So what exactly in your Encyclopedia do you think states that the modern
Latimeria is found as a fossil in Devonian-Jurassic strata? I simply don't
see it in your citation.


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood