In a message dated 8/23/99 4:28:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> Assuming that by "do not believe" you mean "am not convinced" I guess we
>  differ on what "observed" means.

Yes, this is what I mean (Pardon the colloquial expression).  Apparently we
do have differing views as to what constitutes an observation.

>  There are plenty of examples of continuous
>  stratigraphic sequences showing divergence of species, for example in
>  foraminifera in deepsea cores and in diatoms from cores in lakes. Here's an
>  example in mollusk. In the Miocene Pannonian lake basin in Hungary, Muller
>  & Magyar (1991, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 36:353-372) found a gradual
>  transition over time between species of cockles that were previously placed
>  in two different genera in different subfamilies. The lineage starts with
>  Lymnocardium decorum ponticum and leads to the genus Prosodacnomya.
>
>  Do you consider this kind of change through a stratigraphic sequence to be
>  an observation or an inference?

I cannot intelligently comment on the above based simply on your comments.  I
am more than willing to look at this study before forming an opinion.  I will
check with the geology department at the local university in an attempt to
locate this paper.  If it is  a rare or obscure paper not readily available
could you or someone kindly provide a photocopy.  I am curious and I really
enjoy a challenge.

>  To me it is an observation. Isn't this the
>  kind of evidence that you request in the case of Archaeopteryx? The lack of
>  known intermediates in a particular case doesn't mean that intermediates
>  haven't been found in other cases.

In agreement with Ross' recent post, intermediates appear to be lacking
across the board; a fact acknowledged by several prominent evolutionists.

>  >>  What if something evolved entirely by macroevolution? Blammo, in one
> giant
>  >>  mutation, something vastly different appeared. [stuff deleted]
>  >
>  >Mutations generally do not improve a species.
>
>  I didn't say mutations improve species. I don't think they do; they merely
>  make them different. I'm saying, suppose that incredibly rare, one in a
>  quadrillion mutation occurred, and something extremely different from its
>  parents appear and somehow thrived. Here's a real example:
>
>  Van Valen & Maiorana (1991, Evolutionary Theory 10:71-74) named the human
>  cell culture line known as HeLa cells as a new family, genus and species:
>  Helacytidae, Helacyton gartleri. These amoeboid cells are derived from a
>  carcinoma in Henrietta Lacks in 1951. They have somehow been immortalized
>  so that they can keep dividing, rather than dying after 50 or so divisions
>  as do most cell culture lines. The number and organization of chromosomes
>  is different than in humans. HeLa cells invade other tisse cultures, and
>  have become pest in the laboratory, expanding their range from North
>  America to other continents. They can no longer interbreed with their
>  parent species. (Human giving rise to amoeba--sounds like something that
>  happened in Art Weil's basement.)

How interesting!  Now we are evolving into simpler life forms.  Sounds a bit
familiar; kind of like reincarnation.  It must have been bad karma.   :)

>  If an example of a change of a similar order of magnitude (phylum to
>  phylum) could be found outside the laboratory (morphology saying one thing,
>  genetics saying another), would that be evidence of macroevolution?

I restate my position.  Observable (not inferred) evidence of one phylum
tranforming into a new or different phylum would be persuasive and worthy of
a second look.  I await such a phenomenon.

Doug Shelton
Alabama Malacological Research Center
2370-G Hillcrest Road #236
Mobile, AL 36695  USA