Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37) | Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant. Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.
Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask. |
Because it is irelevant to the point being made? Recall that Afarensis wrote: | Quote | | Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Rather the reptile mammal transition is based on things like the evolution of the secondary palate, evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw, evolution of the incisors, canines and check teeth -along with specific patterns of occlusion- , evolution of a bony skull from a skull mainly formed by cartilage, changes in the pectoral and pelvic girdles towards more upright posture, etc. |
In other words, size is irrelevant for the point being made.
It may be true that some folks find this "objectionable" (although I would be curious to know who they are and where they stand on evolutionary theory). Frankly, it seems odd to point to this as any sort of objection to the theory of evolution. But give the DI's track record on the figures for Haeckel's embryos, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there is a priority given to presentation rather than to factual reality.
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
