Re: Still waiting
- From: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:06:48 +0100
In message <PradnZxNZO_vo1XVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steven L. <sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
richardalanforrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:If a creationist insists on restricting transitional fossils to phylogenetic intermediates (i.e., excluding morphological intermediates) then that creationist cannot in good conscience argue that the lack of confirmed phylogenetic intermediates in the fossil record be evidence against the factuality of common descent with modification.To "adman":
Please explain why Archaeopteryx should not be considered a
transitional form.
I'm not a creationist,
but I can think of a possible argument:
For Archaeopteryx to be truly "transitional" in the usual sense, and not just "intermediate," it has to be established as the ancestor of modern birds.
Archaeopteryx is certainly *intermediate*--it has bird characteristics but also reptilian characteristics.
But it could still be an evolutionary dead end which has left no modern bird descendants. Just one of many blind alleys in the history of life.
Perhaps other intermediate species provided the actual transition from reptiles to modern birds.
--
alias Ernest Major
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Still waiting
- From: Robert Carnegie
- Re: Still waiting
- References:
- Still waiting
- From: richardalanforrest
- Re: Still waiting
- From: Steven L.
- Still waiting
- Prev by Date: Re: Re: ToE
- Next by Date: Re: Still waiting
- Previous by thread: Re: Still waiting
- Next by thread: Re: Still waiting
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|