[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re: Reply to Gilgamesh
>I agree, I am niether a proponent of creationism nor Darwinism. There are
>still holes in both. I lean to evolution, but the evidence is not fully in.
>In 1938, a coelacanth, an ancient fish thought to be extinct was pulled
>from the water. It had been extinct for 70 million years, or that was what
>was thought. The fish was disected and there was no indication that it had
>evolved for a land enviroment, and gave no indication to tell us how a fish
>became an amphibian.
I direct you (as best as I can, since I don't have all the refs on me at the
moment) to the popular works of Keith Thomason and others in American
Scientist the last few years, and an article (whose author and issue number
I have forgotten) in this years volume of Trends in Ecology and Evolution
entitled "Coelocanths and the origin of Tetrapods".
And a note: this ain't .skeptic or .origins. You are in the raptors' den. If
you wish to regurtitate the mistruths of Gish & his crowd, you should be
warned: you face the professionals now.
And, on a more productive note, do your research and read some of the above
articles before you post on the subject again.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Dept. of Geology
University of Maryland
Colege Park, MD 20742