RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,04:55   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,19:09)
JAM has specifically mentioned pages 105-106, and I quoted some from pages 102-103 in one of my responses.  I can't read his mind though.  

As for me though, I would recommend reading pages 125-145 to start -- this is where Schindewolf first goes into some detail on the topic of Ammonoid evolution as an "Introductory Example" for his theory.  The time period under discussion (for this one paper at least) is the Middle Jurassic.

Hope that helps!

Thanks, I'll work on it!

In the meantime, I've read the Moyne & Neige paper, and I see that their cladistic analyses (which certainly took a large number of morphologic characters into account) led to the conclusion that  there were two middle Jurassic ammonite lineages.  It seems reasonable that later work would have refined the product of Schindewolf's labors.  So, like Daniel, I don't see anything in the paper that bears on the issue of orthogenesis vs natural selection.

And, like Daniel, I need HELP! in understanding JAM's points.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]