Joined: June 2006
|Schindewolf was a paleontologist. He knew how fossilization occurred. To accuse him of assuming something when (I'm pretty sure) you haven't read the book is presumptuous. He bases his arguments on a multitude of fossil lineages that are thoroughly understood. He spends 55 pages discussing evolutionary patterns among the Cephalopods and the Stony Corals. He uses real world examples in support of his arguments.|
I'm sure he understood the process of fossilization and I've seen his data (although I'm surprised with the amount of life that's inhabited the planet compared to the number of fossils, he would be so shocked to see gaps in the fossil record. I guess he wanted a poster child for the transition). He could have spent 250 pages and it still wouldn't make a difference, this is not 1950. He used the evidence that he had at the time to construct an argument and made a case. Now we have something like this:
But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types. Now I ask you: Why is it that only these transitional forms are preserved?
Do you mean "archetypes" like he writes on page 411? As he says: "In contrast, we stay with the objective natural data and strive to arrange the morphological steps in the system in their natural sequence." So let's look at fossils that have been discovered since 1950: how about the Therapsid-Mammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). Reptile-Amphibian? Try here. Fish-Amphibian? Try here!
|You have to remember that Schindewolf is no creationist. He advocated saltational evolution of types, followed by gradual evolution within types. He did something remarkable: he tailored his views to fit the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit his views.|
Sure, and his ideas were shown through observation to be incomplete, and in most cases incorrect.