Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Editing the Tape of Evolutionary History Yet Again

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The late Stephen J. Gould once wrote “Replay the tape [of evolution] a million times from a Burgess [the Burgess Shale fossils]beginning, and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. It is, indeed, a wonderful life.” (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], “Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History,” [1989], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.289. Well, maybe we wont’ have to replay the tape, because the tape of evolutionary history is getting replayed all the time, in the sense that lately it seems that every new discovery forces a complete re-write (re-wind?) of evolutionary history. Now we have a recent fossil discovery about to be reported in Nature shows that tetrapods may have crawled out of the seas way earlier than previously thought.

According to the article

A set of fossilized footprints show that the first tetrapods – a term applied to any four-footed animal with a spine – were treading open ground 397 million years ago, well before scientists thought they existed.

An expert unconnected with the research said the find would force experts to reconsider a critical period in evolution when sea-based vertebrates took their first steps toward becoming dinosaurs, mammals and – eventually – human beings.

“It blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak,” said Jenny Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University.

The work appears in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.

Despite Gould’s fantasy about rewinding tapes, it seems clear we’ve yet to see the first one correctly. In fact, as more and more discoveries like this one are forthcoming, it seems less and less likely that there even is an evolutionary tape to rewind, or if we even have the right tape. It will be interesting to see how this new find gets edited into the evolutionary tape.

UPDATED: Subsequent to posting this, I found this blogpost at Evolution News and Views written by Casey Luskin. Casey makes a good point regarding this new fossil find and its implications for the oft touted evolutionary link Tiktaalik.

Comments
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Tiktaalik is the direct ancestor of all quadrupeds. This is well known confusion about the status of transitional fossils. It would be a stunning coincidence to come across a fossil of a direct ancestor. Tiktaalik shows transitional features between fish and quadrupeds which would almost certainly have been shared by other species both before and after (indeed some of these features are shown by some current species). There is no contradiction in quadrupeds existing tens of millions of years before Tiktaalik .Mark Frank
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
Evolutionary descent is a radiating pattern, with most lineages varying in length before eventually going extinct.
What we have is a radiating pattern. It is inferred that this is due to evolutionary descent. Please try to learn to discern between fact and theory, please. Like I think that's going to actually happen.Mung
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
Graham in #9 Pharyngula is a waste of time. Panda's Thumb is hardly worth paying attention to anymore.DonaldM
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
Whoops! That was Jehu #6.Paul Giem
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
There is another observation similar to Jehu's law (#8) that should be pointed out. Tracks before fossils is turning out to be a common feature. We have tetrapod tracks here before tetrapod fossils. We have triassic bird tracks before bird fossils. And we have the Laetoli footprints, indistinguishable from modern human footprints, before the fossils of modern humans are found. It seems that something fishy is going on here. Graham I (#9), "Its not like a steady succesion from one model to the next." Wow!. To quote Popper (Unended Quest, p. 172),
Gradualness is thus, from a logical point of view the central prediction of the theory [of evolution]. (It seems to me that it is its only prediction.)
With this prediction apparently falsified, it would appear that evolution has completely left the field of science.Paul Giem
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
To DonaldM: Darwinists will find a way to accomodate their theory ... youre too late, they already have. A report on the article states that there was a transition between fish & land-dwelling tetrapods, but it lasted for about 50m years. Its not like a steady succesion from one model to the next. Go to Pharyngula, or if thats not to your taste, to Pandas Thumb.Graham1
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
DonaldM: "Casey makes a good point regarding this new fossil find and its implications for the oft touted evolutionary link Tiktaalik." I'm still savoring the implications of Archaeopteryx and Ida. I can't wait to see what the menu for 2010 has in store.JPCollado
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
If there are humans tetrapods, why are there still apes fishopods? Evolutionary descent is a radiating pattern, with most lineages varying in length before eventually going extinct. Tiktaalik is an organism that has intermediate features of tetrapods and fish. That doesn't mean it is a direct ancestor of tetrapods. Indeed, that would have been considered highly unlikely.Zachriel
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
This is just a good example of Jehu's Law, which states that evolutionary events will always be discovered to have occurred at an earlier time than previously believed.Jehu
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Hakashima in #2: 20-30mm years becomes significant when the argument is that it took at least that long for evolution to produce tetrapods. Remember the whole argument is that evolution is a long...very long...slow march of accumulated changes. Now it seems not only is 20+ million years shaved off the necessary time, but on top of that, one of the key transitional forms, tiktaalik apparently arrived subsequent to the forms it was transitional to, namely, tetrapods. (See the link in my update to the OP above) These evolutionary timelines can't just be shifted around without creating all sorts of havoc with what supposedly happened when with respect to evolution. Remove 20mm+ years from the evolutionary timeline and explanations for all sorts of changes have to be crammed into ever shrinking bands of time. Now, I don't doubt for one second that Darwinists will find a way to accomodate their theory with this latest discovery, because if we've learned anything about evolution in modern times it is that it is totally and completely impervious to falsification! Even in the article I referenced, no one says, "this casts doubt on evolutionary theory itself." After all, no one doubts that evolution happened, we're just quibbling over how! Uh huh!!DonaldM
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Correction- The article sez:
The earliest tetrapods had been traced to 385 million years ago.
Which doesn't make any sense if Tiktaalik was supposed to be a transitional. It looks like Shubin, et al., need to re-think their find. It also looks like Zachriel, et al., need to re-think their use of Tiktaalik in their "arguments" for Common Descent.Joseph
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Nakashima-san, Tiktaalik is from 375 million years ago. It was not a tetrapod. Tetrapods are allegedly from 365-370 mya. As for your time-line for the Cambrian explosion- that is still in debate. Some say it was 5- 10 million years. Others say up to 40 million. IOW depending on who you talk to the length of between the two aren't so different.Joseph
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Mr DonaldM, "way earlier"? I thought the difference was about 20 million years. If 20 million years is way earlier, please keep that in mind when discussing the Cambrian "Explosion" which happened across 50 million years. The start of that 'explosion' must have been way, way, way earlier than the end. Nonsense. The best information we have now is that the cambrian explosion (no scare quotes I) happened over 5 million, but no longer than 10 million years. Nakashima, you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Editors.Nakashima
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
I always laugh when this aspect of Darwinism comes up - the "evolution from fin to foot" is how the article phrased it. It's obvious to even the most casual observer that fins and feet have no resemblance to one another. Nor should they since their functions are completely different. We are left with the conclusion that this particular evolutionary step must have occurred in one generation. Of course, a lot of other things would also have to change as well to convert to a land dweller. I am reminded of the fish with legs symbol often displayed on bumpers presumably supporting Darwinism, but actually it ridicules it. What's more ridiculous than a fish with legs?jpg564
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply