Arthur V. Chadwick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:18:37 -0800
At 11:23 AM 3/17/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>>>It does not matter whether it be Darwinian evolution or not. IC systems
>>can arise in gradual steps.
>>>So perhaps it is time that the IC people support their ideas that such
>>systems cannot arise naturally.
>>What is your scientific basis for this statement? Perhaps it is time that
>>the evolution people support their ideas that such systems can arise
>>naturally, after all they are the ones who make such an assertion. Where
>>is the evidence?
>Haven't we gone through this a few times already? I suggested the forearm
>as a simple example; which came first, ulna or radius? How could either part
>arise gradually, functional at every step and attached at both ends? But it's
>so easy to see when you trace the gradual distortion and loss of the many
>symmetrical bones in the lungfish limb.
What is the scientific basis for your example? If you choose to believe
that the "phylogenetic lineages" are in fact that, at least be willing to
acknowledge you do so on the basis of an a priori assumption of a specific
interpretation of the fossil record and not on the basis of empirical data.
On what basis are you "see"ing and "trac"ing the process you infer?
You should also be willing to acknowledge that it makes just as much sense
biologically or probably more, to have things going in the opposite
direction (i.e. degeneration), were it not for the fossil record. If you
concede that the fossil record is the court of last appeal, I rest my case..
>IC people rely heavily on the simple-to-complex strawman.
So do evolutionists.