Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another rabbit jumps the hat: 419 mya JAWED fish

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Remember we were discussing how current Darwinian evolution theory would not be challenged even if a modern rabbit were found back in the 550 mya Cambrian era (and Darwin followers in the combox appeared to agree).

Hippety hop. A 419 mya jawed vertebrate.

The ancestors of modern jawed vertebrates are commonly portrayed as fishes with a shark-like appearance. But a stunning fossil discovery from China puts a new face on the original jawed vertebrate. [US$18 paywall]

National Geographic News reports*,

“Entelognathus primordialis is one of the earliest, and certainly the most primitive, fossil fish that has the same jawbones as modern bony fishes and land vertebrates including ourselves,” said study co-author Min Zhu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

But in the new fossil, found in China, has a distinctive three-bone system still used by chewing vertebrates today: a lower jawbone called the dentary and two upper jaw bones called the premaxilla (holding the front teeth) and the maxilla (holding the canine and cheek teeth).

“The exciting thing about this fossil is that when you look at the top of it, it looks like a placoderm, but when you look at the side of the fish and the structure of the jaw, it doesn’t look like any placoderm that we know of,” Friedman said.

“This tends to suggest the exciting possibility that these jawbones evolved way deep down in the lineage, so these features we used to hold as being unique to bony fishes may not be so unique.”

In other words, less evolution and more stasis.

The fish seems to lave lived at the end of the Silurian period, 443 mya to 417 mya.

*Reports it, that is, under the curious title,

”Fish Fossil Has Oldest Known Face, May Influence Evolution“

Influence evolution? Baby, if they found it back then, it IS evolution. Unless, of course, you mean Evolution, the Religion. In other words, the fish may shake up your dogmatics a bit, but whose problem is that, besides yours, at this point?

Fish guy, yer gettin’ ta be a rabbit with me.

Comments
The fossil record is 100% Evolution-free. In all the centuries, it never gave one iota of data in direct support of evolution.
Just out of curiosity . . . why do you suppose the fossil record in conjunction with morphological studies, geographic distributions of species and the ability of variation to be passed along family lines led Darwin to propose his theory? What do you think about the combination of all the data cited in support of evolutionary theory? If we through out the fossil record and only looked at the morphological, geographical and (now) genomic information would you still consider the evidence to be evolution free? What kind of evidence would get you to consider that universal common descent with modification is true? Put another way: what evidence would get you to question intelligent design?Jerad
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle at post 31 wrote:
You, however, rather rudely declined to follow the link because “I don’t do TSZ. It’s too vile, vulgar, and childish for me.”
That was neither rude nor inflammatory. It was a calm and accurate characterization of the tone of much of the dialog at TSZ. About this there is no controversy. You however, rudely and without any foundation chose to dial up the heat and, without any foundation, insult me personally. Tell me, have you discussed your misunderstanding about Meyer's argument directly with him, before propagating the sweeping claim that he "doesn't understand phylogenetics" and therefore his entire book can thus be dismissed?cantor
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Elizabeth,
We can complete the outer most part of the puzzle fairly easily, and see that it forms a tree.
If every animal died at its current altitude and ecological zonation this instant, we could use their remnants to construct a fairly distinct tree as well. We could make up stories about how the sea creatures mutated into the upper highland animals, or how species A radiated and diversified into this or that environmental niche... and keep pointing to the reinforcing pattern. But it wouldn't make it true just because we found a pattern and wrote poetry about how it originated.
Every so often we find a piece that cause us to move a couple of branches around a bit – completed parts of the puzzle that seemed likely to link in one way now look far more likely to be linked in a slightly different way. Branch X that seemed as though it joined with branch Y before branch Z, now looks as though it must join with branch Z before branch Y.
But the puzzle is all in your imagination. Pieces are never *clicking* together. You're never getting any empirical feedback that you've made progress on the "puzzle"... You're feeling around in the dark jamming things together and then patting each other on the back that you've made progress on the puzzle. If you rearrange branches, you have no testable criteria that says you made any progress whatsoever. The fossil record is 100% Evolution-free. In all the centuries, it never gave one iota of data in direct support of evolution. And at the end of the day, all you have is evidence that animals died and/or were buried somewhere. (always under catastrophic burial conditions of course) Driving everything is the religious conviction that Evolution and Common Descent are true... (because we haven't found a rabbit living with fish or amphibians?) so of course every new discovery *sheds more light on evolution* ... The psychology at work is a thing to behold.lifepsy
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
I want a discussion, cantor, but your own post I found inflammatory. I had posted a perfectly good account of what I consider to be Meyer's error at my blog, TSZ, and you asked about it, so I referred you there. I cannot post figures in comments at UD, and in any case I have already explained in full the issues, as well as the figures, in my TSZ post. You, however, rather rudely declined to follow the link because "I don’t do TSZ. It’s too vile, vulgar, and childish for me." So I'm afraid my annoyance showed in my response. If you want to see my annotations, which make my point, you will have to go to TSZ because I can't post them here. If you don't want to do that, then I have described the error here, I think, clearly enough for you to be able to see it once you look at Meyer's diagrams, for which I have given you the numbers. He circles the tips of his diagrammed branches as "phylum" "genus" and "family" instead of the whole branch from which the circled tips grow. This is absolutely wrong.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle at post 29 wrote:
But if even that is too much like eating with publicans and sinners for you,
Your analogy is specious and unwarranted. Do you want to have a discussion or a flame war?cantor
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
All you have to do is click on the link, and you will have the page numbers plus my annotations. My OP is not vile, vulgar, or childish. In any case, you can avert your gaze from the text and just look at the figures, including my annotated ones. But if even that is too much like eating with publicans and sinners for you, the figures I am referring to are 2.11, 2.12, and 7.3. I don't have the page numbers to hand, and in any case, I have the Kindle edition. You should be able to find them from the figure numbers.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle at post 27 wrote:
Because, if you look at the illustrations in his book, which I have reproduced in this post at TSZ,
I don't do TSZ. It's too vile, vulgar, and childish for me. I have Meyer's book. Just tell me the page number you are referring to.cantor
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Because, if you look at the illustrations in his book, which I have reproduced in this post at TSZ, and annotated further down the post, he circles parts of his tree sketches with taxon labels like Phylum, Genus, and Family only the organisms depicted at the tip of their respective branches, not the organisms depicted by the entire branch. He thus sees phyla "appearing" long after the speciation event that produced them, and then concludes that phyla appear after species. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of both taxonomy and phylogenetics and of the relationship between the too, and undermines his entire argument about disparity vs diversity on which his book is based.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle at post 23 wrote:
He doesn’t understand that a taxon, for example a phylum, includes all organisms in the hierarchy/branch, not just the ones at the tip.
How do you know he doesn't understand that?cantor
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
OK, here is a thought experiment: Imagine a vast jigsaw puzzle representing a diagram of an actual tree of life, from simplest unicellular organism to all species that have ever lived. Somethign like this, for instance, but with every population described and labelled. Forget any dispute about how such a tree started, or how the diversification happened (posit an Intelligent Designer if you will) and just assume, for the purpose of this exercise, that all living things did, nonetheless descend from a common simple ancestor, and that a full diagram does, or did exist, and was made into a puzzle. Now assume that most of the puzzle is missing, and in particular, that we have more pieces representing recent organisms than very old organisms. But that we keep occasionally finding long-lost pieces. We can complete the outer most part of the puzzle fairly easily, and see that it forms a tree. We can also assemble what seem to be continuous branches leading towards the root, and we can see that different branches lead in the same direction. We also see that there is a date on many of the pieces, telling us that the tree grew over time. Every so often we find a piece that cause us to move a couple of branches around a bit - completed parts of the puzzle that seemed likely to link in one way now look far more likely to be linked in a slightly different way. Branch X that seemed as though it joined with branch Y before branch Z, now looks as though it must join with branch Z before branch Y. The fish in question is like that new piece of the puzzle. And the OP likens it to finding a piece of the puzzle with an ancient date, but which bears no resemblance to any other piece with that date, and an extremely close resemblance to pieces round the edge of the puzzle, of extremely recent date. Not only that, but we've already completed large parts of that bit of the puzzle, and there is no space to put the new piece. That is what finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would represent. The amount of the puzzle that is complete makes universal common descent amount to a fact. You may wish to assign credit for the pattern to a designer, who took about three or so billion years to come up with the current designs, and did so by tweaking the DNA of lineage over time so that it best suited its environment. Fine. You may also wish to assign credit for the first life form to a designer. Fine. But it is the pattern of common descent over three or so billion years that is simply not in dispute, no matter what underlying process you want to invoke for producing that pattern. The time scale is clear, give or take some details, and the pattern is clear, give or take some details. There were no rabbits in the Cambrian because at the time of the Cambrian, most of the known lineage of rabbits did not exist.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
lifepsy
No it doesn’t. It looks like a wide spectrum of complexity and morphospace for a particular ecosystem was killed suddenly.
Well the entire academic domain of phylogenetics begs to differ.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
He doesn't understand that a taxon, for example a phylum, includes all organisms in the hierarchy/branch, not just the ones at the tip.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle wrote in post 4:
Stephen Meyer, who actually wrote a book about the Cambrian – doesn’t understand phylogenetics either.
What specifically does he not understand, Elizabeth?cantor
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” [“Fossil Evidence,” November 2004, p. 25] Consider the implications of that illustration. Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion? How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.” [The Evolutionists—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105]Barb
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Dr. Liddle, The reason this fossil is a problem for Darwinian evolution, is because the Darwinian mechanisms invoked are insufficient to generate the initial disparity created with each major evolutionary adaptive pulse, and the problem is being compounded by the time compression element that is presented by fossils that are like this one (earlier than thought). As everyone knows, this problem is quite acute in the Cambrian. Also, notice that at about the same time as our new fish, we have tetrapods in Poland (400 Mya). This really looks like whole body plan changes in the blink of an eye, and that needs to be explained in a different way, because the speed of evolution during these pulses appears to be far beyond the reach of the time scales required by 'heritable variation in reproductive success'. Obviously, there must be some extraordinary mechanisms acting as the creative force, because it is truly a beautiful marvel. Lastly, I agree that there has been a large degree of decent with modification, however, that sort of thing happened after the creation, and introduction(seeding)of that kind into the world. Seems like the perfect plan to fill the earth full of life!littlejohn
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Palaeontology isn’t about providing evidence for evolution. That boat has sailed. It’s about uncovering the fascinating pattern of common descent.
Nonsense. Common descent is not a pattern, it is a theory. There is no "pattern of common descent." And common descent doesn't even explain the pattern that you claim to be a pattern of common descent. You're just confused about evolutionary theory. So let's talk about descent with modification, which again, is not a pattern. What Darwin proposed was a mechanism of modification, or change. This was his theory of natural selection. So natural selection was supposed to account for the differences, without which there would be no pattern to even speak of. Common descent was supposed to explain the things that are the same. If it's all the same, there is no pattern. Silly rabbit. So, no more nonsense, please.Mung
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
I don’t think you understand phylogenetics, news.
Or rabbits!Mung
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Elizabeth: it still looks like it had the pattern and time-distribution that would look like common descent. No it doesn't. It looks like a wide spectrum of complexity and morphospace for a particular ecosystem was killed suddenly.lifepsy
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
I didn't mean you were silly. I just mean the idea that this finding is remotely like the "Rabbit in the Cambrian". Which does not of course exist.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
niwrad: Well, that's fine, niwrad - call it the pattern of common design if you like. The point is that what this thing fits into is the tree pattern. Which has a timeline as well, of course. So if it's common design, then it still looks like it had the pattern and time-distribution that would look like common descent. Either way, this puzzle piece fits in a way that a rabbit in the Cambrian would absolutely not.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Collin:
Dr. Liddle, I think that the reason a rabbit in the Cambrian would be a problem for evolution is that certain features that rabbits have were thought to only exist with mammals who evolved much later. Is this correct?
Yes, and not just mammalian features but features common to other organisms not found earlier than long after the Cambrian - tetrapod architecture, for instance.
Then does this sentence have any bearing on whether or not evolution is true “so these features we used to hold as being unique to bony fishes may not be so unique.” Couldn’t you see, “So these features [fur, mammary glands, live birth] we used to hold as being unique to mammals may not be so unique.”
Well, no. Forget evolution as a Darwinian process, for a minute, and OoL, and just think about Common Descent, and the distribution of features than support it. This new finding is part of that picture - a very interesting part. A rabbit in the Cambrian would be part of some completely different picture. This one is like a puzzle piece that makes you go "aha! now I see how this section attaches to that section!" A rabbit in the Cambrian would be like a puzzle piece that makes you go "now I just have no clue what this picture is". I don't know if the Nature articles are open access, but check out that discussion on Talk Rational. I think you'll see what I mean.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Lizzie, it might help if you distinguished between the pattern and the process here -- we could look at the paleontological discoveries as evidence of the phylogenetic pattern, and look to lab and field work for evidence of the processes of adaptation and speciation.Kantian Naturalist
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Well, yes, in a way. That's because the evidence is already vast. But no in another way. More evidence for common descent isn't needed (I'm not talking about evolutionary mechanisms here, just common descent). So new evidence like this is fascinating because it fills in pieces of the puzzle. So you are correct. But it's a bit like saying, when standing over a bloodied corpse, ah, a knife wound as well as a bullet hole. Yet more evidence that he's dead.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: "Palaeontology isn’t about providing evidence for evolution. That boat has sailed. It’s about uncovering the fascinating pattern of common descent." Your comment is a good example. People who faithfully believe in Evolution will see every last shred of data as more confirming evidence for it. And in turn you will declare that your confidence to do so comes from so much confirming evidence of Evolution.lifepsy
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Dr. Liddle, I think that the reason a rabbit in the Cambrian would be a problem for evolution is that certain features that rabbits have were thought to only exist with mammals who evolved much later. Is this correct? Then does this sentence have any bearing on whether or not evolution is true "so these features we used to hold as being unique to bony fishes may not be so unique.” Couldn't you see, "So these features [fur, mammary glands, live birth] we used to hold as being unique to mammals may not be so unique." ?Collin
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle The "fascinating pattern of common descent" is the "fascinating pattern of common design". If Darwinists want to prove CD, they must prove in details the transformations in the generations. But the usual magic word variations-in-the-genotype-lead-to-changes-in-the-phenotype explains 0 (zero) transformations. Evolution, by definition, is a transformer. If it doesn't transform, what transformer is? When finally will you open your eyes?niwrad
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
No, lifepsy you are simply wrong. Palaeontology isn't about providing evidence for evolution. That boat has sailed. It's about uncovering the fascinating pattern of common descent. There is no mysticism about it, just a lot of painstaking research that involves piecing together information from many sources.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
It's not a problem for Evolution, because Evolution insulates itself from such potentially damaging discoveries, while at the same time touting current morphology-sequence imagineering as evidence for evolution of morphology. Darwinian mystics use both the construction and destruction of sequences as constantly increasing evidence... Like Elizabeth says, it's "beautiful" ! Just more confirming evidence for evolution! Oh, so feature X appears 10, 50, or 100 million years earlier than we thought? Nooooo problem. It just sheds more light on evolution!... Yea we were telling stories before that turned out to be completely false, but science is a self-correcting process you know... Now, come over here and look at all the 'evidence' we have for the evolution of this other animal feature....lifepsy
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Anyway, for anyone interested there is a lively discussion between some distinguished palaentologists, including one of the authors of the Nature News and Views piece at Talk Rational: Ancient fish face shows roots of modern jaw, Martin Brazeau, and Per Ahlberg. Also another few, incognito. And Atheistoclast.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle I don't think this new fossil is good news for Darwinists. They already had to explain how 500 million species arose from OOL, bit by bit, second by second, molecule by molecule. Today they have 500 millions + 1. Good work. ... ... ... Ok ok, "But this is just silly, niwrad"...niwrad
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply