 |
| As whales evolved increasingly aquatic lifestyles, they also evolved nostrils located further and further back on their skulls. |
In my previous article, (https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/what-would-transitional-creature-look.html), I asked creationists to imagine what a transitional form might be like. It was an invitation to use their imaginations to consider a "what if?" scenario. What if evolution was not something you were committed to resist come what may, but you were open instead to the hypothetical possibility that it was real? What would such hypothetical transitional forms be like? What might possibly qualify as a transitional form, however hypothetical? It appears that this was an intellectual challenge that nobody could rise to.
Nobody came up with any examples. A common bleat was that we should expect to see a huge number of supposedly transitional forms. This was bleated without answering the question as to what a transitional form might look like. Thus the bleat comes down to, "We don't see countless numbers of forms we cannot even describe or specify."
Another common bleat was that we should expect to see huge numbers or these (things we cannot characterise) in the fossil record. Apart from being incoherent, the bleat does not take into account the fact, long recognised, and beginning with Darwin, that the fossil record is extremely fragmented. Fossilisation, is very rare, and evolution is recognised as both punctuated by environmental change but also subject to long periods of equilibrium where there is no cause for change. This has been settled since the long and often lively exchanges between Dawkins and Gould. We expect to see "gaps".
The illustration comes from https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/ and shows a transition of the blowhole location in cetaceans. Cetaceans provide a rich source of fossil remains which only the most obstinate, die-hard creationists would deny strongly indicate an evolutionary succession. We don't have the DNA, so there is always the "tiny precious doubt" that any of these are related, however far-fetched such a supposition may be. But we do have proof of evolution from the DNA of different "kinds" of creatures. Just go to my ERV FAQ @ https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/endogenous-retroviruses-frequently.html
On a less scientific note, I fail to see why a "designer" would create aquatic mammals when he had already created perfectly (and better) adapted non-mammalian aquatic creations.
And what about this huge number of expected "transitional fossils"? Well, there are a huge number of extinct species in the fossil record. Some estimate that the vast majority of fossil remains represent extinct species. Can't the "intelligent designer" ever get anything right?
https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/transitionals.html
No comments:
Post a Comment