Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Horsefeathers
Message-ID: <827@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 15:00:30 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.827
Posted: Mon Mar 25 15:00:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Mar-85 06:25:46 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 81



> [Jeff Sonntag]
> Paul Dubois, writing on the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie 
> evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out:
> > Evolutionists developed the idea.  Some evolutionists realize this, some
> > (as, apparantly, Bill) do not.  Some creationists realize this, some do
> > not.  Some creationists realize that it is not necessary to evolutionary
> > theory, some do not.
> > 
> > But whether the idea is true or not, it *is* the case that a number of
> > proposed intermediates have been rejected as such (by evolutionists) on
> > the basis of EXACTLY the above reasoning:  a form is not transitional to
> > another form if it exists contemporaneously with it.  Lungfish, for
> > example.  My beloved coelecanth, for another.  Archaeopteryx is under
> > the same pressure since the discovery of other fossils which are clearly
> > birds contemporary to it.

>      It really doesn't matter *who* has accepted the idea that a form is not
> transitional to another form if they exist contemporaneously.  The idea simply
> doesn't stand up to examination.

Fine.
I was not concerned to demonstrate the validity or invalidity of the
idea that when species evolve the parent species must die.  I was
concerned to demonstrate that the idea did not originate with
creationists, so it is an evolutionist FALLACY to imply that it did.
Really, for all the times that we hear in this newsgroup that
creationists attact a mistaken notion of what evolutionists believe,
I sometimes wonder if even evolutionists know what evolutionists
believe.

> Archaeopteryx may or may not have been
> the link between reptiles and birds, but the fact that Archaeopteryx hadn't
> died out before birds developed HELPS TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT ARCHAEOPTERYX
> was the parent specie.

That fact alone has nothing to do with support for your contention.  It
must be bolstered by additional assumptions.  Other possibilities,
equally plausible from the sequence in the rocks, are that both
descended from common ancestors, or that Archaeopteryx descended from
more well-developed birds (e.g., McGowan thinks the Ostrich degenerated
from more well-developed birds) or that Archaeopteryx and other birds
have no common ancestor.  Which of these are inconsistent with the
fossils, or less consistent with the idea you claim they support?

> Birds could hardly have developed from Arch. if Arch.
> had died out before birds developed.  It's almost a tautology.  Yet Paul
> tries to get us to deny the possibility of Arch.'s intermediate status
> (not solely) on the basis of it's contemporaneousness with birds, a fact
> which actually *lends support to* it's intermediate status!

I did no such thing.  I stated that the line of reasoning has been
used by *evolutionists* as evidence against certain forms being
transitional.

>      Just what would you require of an intermediate specie between birds
> and reptiles, Paul?  You criticized Arch.'s feathers as being almost
> identicle with modern bird feathers.

I didn't "criticize" the feathers.  It's simply a fact.  What do you
want me to say about them?  That they're NOT identical with modern
bird feathers?

> You want maybe some sort of useless
> half-feather?  Why would something like that be selected for?  Why would
> you expect a specie with useless features to survive long enough to leave
> any kind of fossil record?

Like the Irish Elk?

I assume from what you say that we *wouldn't* expect intermediate
features, that we must go from one developed structure to another
- no incipient features.  Would we, then, expect instantaneous
appearance of fully developed feathers? Anything less would not be
selected for?  Or what?
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
                                                                    |