NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/origins/16830

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!tdat!tools3!swf
From: [e-mail] (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Keywords: info requested
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:51:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
Lines: 28

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rich Trott) writes:
|>
|> CLAIM #1:  "According to evolutionists it would have taken 100 million
|> years for a fish to have evolved from an invertebrate.  But there is absolutely
|> no fossil evidence showing that this took place."
|>
|> I have ample documentation to discredit his other claims about lack of
|> fossil evidence, but I can't seem to locate anything about this one.
|> Does this evidence truly not exist?  If not, what is the evidence?  If
|> so, how do evolutionists explain it?

Well, the primary fallacy that I see is the assumption that one can accurately
estimate how long it 'would' take for some sort of change to evolve.
How does one know it would take 100 million years for the evolution of fish?
What evidence is there for it?

Secondly, the period of time during which this evoution happened was so long ago
that the fossil record is quite sparse. But even as it is there are a number of
good intermediate forms.  There are several early chordates in Cambrian strata
which make good ancestors for all vertebrates.  Also, the earliest known fish
are not really 'vertebrate' in any real sense - that is they do not actually
have any vertebrae, just a cartelage notochord.  In fact they closely resemble
the known Cephalochordates (the non-vertebrate chordates most similar to fish).

--
[e-mail]            (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
[e-mail]