WRE>I think, Chris, that you grant Johnson too much credit in his
WRE>assertion that the invertebrate fossil record fails to clearly
WRE>document transitional sequences. In fact, my reading leads me
WRE>to almost the opposite conclusion -- the invertebrate fossil
WRE>record yields a richer source of data concerning transitions
WRE>than does the vertebrate record.
MB>Do not lose sight of the larger picture, people. Johnson claims
MB>there are no transitionals in the invertebrate fossil record. Chris
MB>then uses Darwinian evolution (DE) to explain why this is expected
MB>from DE. His explanations sounds reasonable and plausible. But
MB>now Wesley tells us there are transitionals. Moral to the story?
MB>DE is so plastic, so blob-like, and so unfalsifiable that
MB>it can even be used to come up with rational explanations
MB>for states that do not exist. Now....let that sink in.
The computer science aphorism, "Garbage in; garbage out", would
seem to cover the situation nicely. Feed in a false premise;
get back a wrong answer. Evolutionary biology is not the only
stance that can fall prey to such a situation. There are plenty
of examples of theologians coming up with "reasonable and
plausible" explanations due to ignorance that were later found
to be wrong. I find it rather odd that Mike thinks that this
sally of his is significant.
I also did not notice Mike disestablishing the transitional
character of the sequence discussed by Pearson et alia in the
cited reference. That sort of thing can't be accomplished by
artful rhetoric. It would take actual work. I'm not
expecting to see such anytime soon.
I encourage people not to lose sight of the original picture:
Johnson made a "reasonable and plausible" sounding claim that
nevertheless was counterfactual. The fossil evidence doesn't
just go away because somebody or multiple someones did not
know about it before spouting off.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 22 2000 - 13:34:45 EST