. . . the fossil record says nothing about the creation of the basic forms, only how they changed . . . Are you sure? Are you familiar with how far back the fossil record goes and what kind of changes it does show? Just an example of what I'm talking about:
Phylum-Level Evolution, by recovering YEC Glenn R. Morton.
. . . why a gill or a lung or a wing would be a positive survival trait before it was functional . . .
If it's a positive survival trait, it's functional enough to make a difference and be retained. The early function may be much less than, or even qualitatively different from, the later function. (For instance, a bat's wings were once grasping hands.)
Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!-- further, the evolutionary model he proposes "Punctuated Equilibrium" requires the unexplained, the unobserved, and the unrecorded(in the fossil record) to work. There are several far brighter mathmatical types on these posts as well who offer fascinating reads on probability and survivability of incomplete systems.
Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium is an important theory, like that of Darwin which it modifies and extends. It is the theory, and not Gould or Darwin, which is important. Science is not a religion--dispite the claim (a projection of their own belief system?) of creationists--and does not have saints or infallible authority figures.
Placemarker.
Sorry, forgot I was having this conversation.
"Are you sure?"I visited that link, thank you, it was very instructive. HoweverTwo of the points he make are fairly easily disputed.(whether they are true or not is another matter)
1. He talks about forms evolving from one distinct type to another. As his primary example he offers a fossil of a long animal with lobopods (lumpy feet for people like me)Here is one of the fossils he provides:
He does not talk about its date precisely seems to hold that its from the Vendian period (620m-540m bce)
The point he tries to make with this fossil is that it shows a worm on its way to evolving to another species, in short, a classic transitional form.
Here is a current photograph of what appears to be a very close relative, not at all fossilized, that does not seem to have "transited" anywhere:
2.(the other point that was disputable) He claimed the apparent big explosion of life in the Cambrian was misleading in that it just indicated this is when all the disparate forms all evolved shells, and their shell-less precursers did not leave fossils. There are two quick points on this. Firstly a LOT of different forms suddenly appeared. To surmise that they all evolved shells in parallel strains credulity but its certainly not an adequate refutal of the claim. The more convincing refutation, to me, occurs farther back on his own page and is the first image posted on this reply: It is a fossil from an earlier age that is soft.
It appears from his own supporting evidence that his assertions are not conclusive.
Please send more links if you have them.
Regards
v.