Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A year ago, Nature published an educational booklet with the title 15 Evolutionary gems (as a resource for the Darwin Bicentennial). Number 2 gem is Tiktaalik a well-preserved fish that has been widely acclaimed as documenting the transition from fish to tetrapod. Tiktaalik was an elpistostegalian fish: a large, shallow-water dwelling carnivore with tetrapod affinities yet possessing fins. Unfortunately, until Tiktaalik, most elpistostegids remains were poorly preserved fragments.

“In 2006, Edward Daeschler and his colleagues described spectacularly well preserved fossils of an elpistostegid known as Tiktaalik that allow us to build up a good picture of an aquatic predator with distinct similarities to tetrapods – from its flexible neck, to its very limb-like fin structure. The discovery and painstaking analysis of Tiktaalik illuminates the stage before tetrapods evolved, and shows how the fossil record throws up surprises, albeit ones that are entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking.”

Just when everyone thought that a consensus had emerged, a new fossil find is reported – throwing everything into the melting pot (again!). Trackways of an unknown tetrapod have been recovered from rocks dated 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik. The authors say that the trackways occur in rocks that: “can be securely assigned to the lower-middle Eifelian, corresponding to an age of approximately 395 million years”. At a stroke, this rules out not only Tiktaalik as a tetrapod ancestor, but also all known representatives of the elpistostegids. The arrival of tetrapods is now considered to be 20 million years earlier than previously thought and these tetrapods must now be regarded as coexisting with the elpistostegids. Once again, the fossil record has thrown up a big surprise, but this one is not “entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking”. It is a find that was not predicted and it does not fit at all into the emerging consensus.

“Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.” (Janvier & Clement, 2010)

The Nature Editor’s summary explained: “The finds suggests that the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms, and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates.” Henry Gee, one of the Nature editors, wrote in a blog:

“What does it all mean?
It means that the neatly gift-wrapped correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny, in which elpistostegids represent a transitional form in the swift evolution of tetrapods in the mid-Frasnian, is a cruel illusion. If – as the Polish footprints show – tetrapods already existed in the Eifelian, then an enormous evolutionary void has opened beneath our feet.”

For more, go here:
Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/01/09/lobbing_a_grenade_into_the_tetrapod_evol

Additional note: The Henry Gee quote is interesting for the words “elpistostegids represent a transitional form”. In some circles, transitional forms are ‘out’ because Darwinism presupposes gradualism and every form is no more and no less transitional than any other form. Gee reminds us that in the editorial office of Nature, it is still legitimate to refer to old-fashioned transitional forms!

Comments
Timaeus: I mean this sincerely: that was an excellent read. I feel I have a much better understanding of the ID worldview now; thank you. One quibble — I still feel that if it's presumptuous for biologists to develop theories of species origin, it is presumptuous for anyone, because we all have the same ignorance of how exactly DNA works and exactly which species once inhabited our planet. Unless, of course, the teleological explanation should be the default in any scientific endeavor, such as astronomy, until such time as sufficient knowledge allows us to comfortably and non-presumptuously rule it out. But I don't think you think that; I think you think that biology is in particular ripe for the design inference, due to the nature of its subjects — the extraordinary functional complexity of life forms at every level, from the body plan to the cell. Hence, biologists have an "onus" that meteorologists do not. A related issue I have is that I don't fully grasp the relevance of biology's inexactness in comparison to physics or chemistry. If this is a problem, it's a problem for everyone; ID doesn't have some rigorously detailed mechanism to replace biology's lack of one. And biology being messy and inexact doesn't somehow provide evidence against evolution or for design. It just means that whatever happened, it happened messily. It seems to me that almost any science could be described as "sweeping generalities about hypothetical large-scale processes whose details are poorly understood". Physicists are always inventing new hypothetical particles to get their theories to work, and can never agree on which interpretation of quantum is correct; surely this means that they are desperately doing whatever they can to avoid the telic alternative? Anyway, it looks like I was indeed wrong about Behe and malaria. My impression from reading summaries of The Edge of Evolution was that he used malarial resistance to quinine as an example of a far-too-improbable two-mutation event (from which I assumed he felt a designer was necessary). But if I understand correctly now, that particular malarial development is in fact being used as an example of what naturalistic evolution perhaps could have done, given enough generations (and that despite its number of generations, malaria hasn't developed anything truly interesting). I could still be wrong, of course. :)Lenoxus
January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Cabal:
Even when genetic research confirm the relationships established by paleontology?
Unfortunately for you there isn't any genetic data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible.
Sincerely, is it your opinion that unless proof that you had a grandfather can be produced, you didn’t have a grandfather?
Do TRY to follow along. In comment 59 Lev said:
I have a creeping suspicion that you are not a descendant of your proposed grandfather.
So take it up with her- ya see she started this stupidity and hooked you instead of me...Joseph
January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Is my account still functional?Zach Bailey
January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Cabal, Haven't you heard the trade secret of paleontology? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/texas-mandates-teaching-the-trade-secret-of-paleontology/Collin
January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Cabal
Even when genetic research confirm the relationships established by paleontology?
That is an odd question. Phylogenetics in many cases contradicts classical cladistics inferred from morphology alone.Jehu
January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Joseph,
Tiktaalik could be a grandfather to other Tiktaaliks. That is as far as the evidence can go.
Since your view is equally applicable to all fossils, we may safely assume that they are insignificant? Even when genetic research confirm the relationships established by paleontology? Sincerely, is it your opinion that unless proof that you had a grandfather can be produced, you didn't have a grandfather? All we need now is for you to produce proof of intelligent design. An inference, like inferring that you have a grandfather has already been rejected by dismissing my inference that you had one by way of requesting proof.Cabal
January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Cabal, The point being is that you need POSITIVE evidence for you claims. To date all you have is the refusal to accept the design inference.Joseph
January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Cabal:
Excellent! You never proposed a particular grandfather, but you are of course not denying that you have had – indeed must have had a grandfather?
Prove it.
Just like we consider Tiktaalik looking like a candidate for the role of ‘grandfather’ but we are not proposing that she is the ‘grandfather’. Fair enough?
Tiktaalik could be a grandfather to other Tiktaaliks. That is as far as the evidence can go. But there isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates that the transformations required are even possible.
You’re entitled to your opinion,
It is a fact, not an opinion.Joseph
January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Lenoxus @ 73: I don't know how much science you know, so I don't know how much I need to explain to you. Have you heard of spectroscopic analysis? It's used to determine the presence of elements, and is very handy for indicating the presence of elements in places where we can't go. For example, the element helium was first detected, not on earth, but by spectroscopic analysis of the light of the sun. So we infer something of the composition of the sun working from physics (spectroscopy) learned via experimental science on earth. Our discovery that the sun is largely hydrogen and helium, combined with other things we know about atoms and their nuclei, allows for a reasonable extrapolation to the conclusion that the sun is a huge furnace in which heavier elements are baked out of hydrogen. I wouldn't say that genetics is in horrible disarray. I said that the old one-gene, one-trait model was no longer tenable. Dr. MacNeill, the Darwinian biologist here, has confirmed this. That doesn't mean that the whole mechanism of genes and traits worked out in the wake of the discovery of DNA is wrong, but it means that it needs supplementation by more complex mechanisms in which the genome and developmental processes are interrelated in very subtle ways. I understand that biologists are working on this now. But until they have it worked out how genetics and developmental processes work in everyday reproduction that we can observe and study and experiment with, it's premature to make grand claims about the mechanisms of evolution operating 500 million years ago in ecosystems which we cannot accurately reconstruct. So evolutionary biologists should be very tentative at this point. Unfortunately, tentativeness is not in their nature; from the beginning, evolutionary biology has had delusions of grandeur, and it attracts the sort of person who likes to make sweeping generalities about hypothetical large-scale processes whose details are poorly understood. One camp is sure that "drift" is the big factor; another, "selection"; another is sure that all evolutionary change is slow and incremental; still another, that it proceeds in fits and starts; and none of them is capable of verifying any of these grand claims with decisive observations or experiments. (In contrast, you have the humble research biologists, the kind of people who study, say, metal levels in the tissues of lake trout, who are cautious and modest and limited in both their theoretical and practical claims. These are the kinds of biologist who actually add to reliable scientific knowledge.) Your remark about Behe shows a misunderstanding of Behe, of my remarks, or both. I am in complete agreement with the main argument of Behe in *The Edge of Evolution*, and of course his point is that Darwinian processes have been able to accomplish almost nothing with malaria -- in the way of building complex new cellular machinery -- in millions of generations. How likely is it, then, that such processes -- by themselves -- could turn shrews into bats, or hyraxes into elephants? I suggest you read Behe's book; it sounds as if you haven't. In answer to your question, I think people should "subscribe" to any theory of origins that tickles their fancy; but if they go beyond the claim that it tickles their fancy, and assert that a particular theory of origins is an irrefutable truth of science, and that anyone who questions it is an anti-scientific religious fanatic, then they had better have some pretty impressive evidence ready. I have nothing against Darwinism *as speculation*. But it is nowhere near strong enough to compel assent, as, say, Newtonian mechanics or the ideal gas laws are, or as atomic theory is. There is nowhere near enough evidence that Darwinian processes can do what they are alleged to have done. All claims to the contrary are bluffs by frustrated biologists who know that their science is nowhere near as exact as chemistry and physics, and bitterly resent the fact. I'm not impressed by bluffs. My chemistry and physics teachers never bluffed me. They proved things. Dawkins and Coyne, on the other hand, bluff regularly. Why should I trust them? And why should I give their view monopoly status in the school system? The complexity of weather systems is a poor analogy to biological complexity. Indeed, weather "system" is a misleading term, because it suggests a kind of structural permanence that meteorological phenomena do not possess. Related to this is the difference between efficient causation and final causation; there is no reason to suppose that final causation is necessary to explain weather systems, whereas the onus is on the Darwinians to show that final causation is not necessary to explain living systems, since all appearance, and structural and functional analysis, points in the opposite direction. And indeed, until the time of Darwin, this was the view of virtually all scientific minds -- that living systems were radically end-directed and that such systems could not have come about by chance. Darwin hardly made a dent in the traditional view on the level of detailed argument, though he made a huge splash rhetorically, by offering an alternative broad general concept. But he could not explain any of the details. And we aren't much further ahead on the details today, despite the fact that we know a thousand times more than Darwin did about genetics, development, etc. This suggests that throwing out final causation may well have been premature. Biologists committed that premature act because they wanted to be just like the physicists. It didn't occur to them, as it occurred to Aristotle, that biology and physics may require different modes of explanation. That's where physics envy blinded and misguided the biologists. Fortunately, physics itself has now become deeper, and has become aware of "fine tuning" in nature. Physics has moved into the 21st century, whereas biologists like Dawkins are still stuck in the 19th. If the biologists do their physics-aping again (in an effort to prove how scientific they are), they may (years after the physicists, as usual) figure out that living systems, as well as physical constants, are fine-tuned. That will lead them to a fuller understanding of living systems, one which leaves Darwinian thinking in the dustbin of history. T.Timaeus
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
Timaeus:
Regarding the stars, we can duplicate some of the physical processes that go on inside stars here on earth — in hydrogen bombs, for instance.
Hydrogen bombs are products of design, and thus provide only evidence for the design theory of stars. Also, how in the world do we even know stars are anything like hydrogen bombs? We have no idea. You cannot produce the detailed physical evidence. You have nothing.
We also know a great deal about atomic physics and atomic chemistry in general. So we have a basis for extrapolation.
Okay, turning off the sarcasm here… this is exactly the case for biology. If genetics is in some sort of horrible disarray, then so is physics, which is always having to revise the Standard Model and whatnot.
Regarding macroevolution, we have no empirical experience. We have never seen even the fastest-reproducing species (fruit flies, malaria, etc.) create fundamentally new complex systems, in any number of observed generations.
My understanding of "macroevolution", at this point, is "any evolution that has not been demonstrated in a lab". No matter what traits are gained, it isn't macroevolution, because it's not "fundamentally" new, or complex, or whatever. So why haven't we yet bred flies that breathe underwater or something? Well, for one thing, if fruit flies had some propensity to satisfactorily "macroevolve" within a few human generations, gaining extra wings or something, we wouldn't even need a lab to see that. Funny that you mentioned malaria, because Behe believes the opposite — that certain malarial developments can only be the product of design. IDers constantly claim that all major past transitions, such as from fish to tetrapods, required design, even if it was very subtle, consisting solely of gradual changes with no saltation. Why should observed gradual evolution in a lab be any different? How would we rule out the designer as being behind the mutations involved?
We thus are far too ignorant about the mechanisms of life to have any basis for a confident extrapolation from normal inheritance to macroevolutionary change.
Yet we are knowledgeable enough to confidently extrapolate a completely unobserved and vaguely described phenomenon in place of normal inheritence? Are you ultimately saying that no one should subscribe to any theory of origins until we have enough data, or what?
ID’s job isn’t to provide detailed pathways, because ID isn’t a historical theory of origins. Neo-Darwinism is a historical theory of origins. It thus commits itself to the explication of detailed pathways. To the extent that it cannot deliver such pathways, it has failed by its own lights.
So even though some sort of history of life probably happened, nobody should be so presumptuous as to think they have a theory of that history; then there's just too much to explain.
Where neo-Darwinism and ID clash is not over “evolution”, but over neo-Darwinism’s claim that the science of evolutionary biology has progressed so far that it can now assure the world that no intelligence was necessary to produce complex, integrated biological systems.
Can anyone demonstrate that "no intelligence was necessary to produce complex, integrated weather systems"? Really? So we have perfect simulations and models of all weather phenomena, down to the molecule, at our fingertips? We know for a fact that there's absolutely no designer behind evaporation and tornadoes? If not, why the hubris of refusing a designer?Lenoxus
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
critter @ 71: I didn't know that Zachriel had been banned. He was still posting early yesterday afternoon. I have no idea why he was banned, but in any case, his ban came over two days after I had posted my last two replies to him on the Dec. 19th thread, repeating my earlier challenge to him to provide details of the Darwinian mechanisms. In the intervening time he had posted several times on other threads, and had not responded to my challenge. I infer that he had decided to drop my challenge before he was banned. As for why he dropped my challenge, the most obvious explanation is given in 68 and 70 above. Darwinists always drop the challenge when it gets to the nitty-gritty. They cannot choke the following, entirely true words out of their throats: "I cannot provide any details regarding how complex integrated organs, systems, etc. arose by Darwinian means. I just believe that they did." I wonder how the Dover Trial would have gone if all the scientific witnesses for the plaintiffs had been so bluntly honest about the limitations of their scientific knowledge. But of course, the Dover Trial wasn't about science -- it was about politics. T.Timaeus
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
68 Timaeus ------------------ Zachriel can't respond as he has been banned without even an announcement.critter
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Timaeus:
Ah, yes, Zachriel. The messy details of biological research...Have you been preparing that detailed evolutionary map? Are you about to publish it for us here? If you do, I’ll eat my words.
Unfortunately you'll have to go hungry, as you are speaking to an empty chair. Zachriel has been silently banned. Perhaps you can obtain an explanation from the moderator. As it is, those of us who are less than sympathetic to ID are left to guess, as we detect neither the application of the explicitly enunciated moderation policy nor any other consistently applied rules or principles. In many instances moderation and/or banning appears to serve the sole purpose of impairing the the ability of those who are not sympathetic to ID to press their point of view. If the UD moderator has a case to make to the contrary, he should make it. And, BTW, editing or declining to post this message altogether (or banning its author) will not help that case.Voice Coil
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Lenoxus @ 69: You don't know how I'll react until you produce the goods. Regarding the stars, we can duplicate some of the physical processes that go on inside stars here on earth -- in hydrogen bombs, for instance. We also know a great deal about atomic physics and atomic chemistry in general. So we have a basis for extrapolation. Regarding macroevolution, we have no empirical experience. We have never seen even the fastest-reproducing species (fruit flies, malaria, etc.) create fundamentally new complex systems, in any number of observed generations. And we understand very little of developmental processes, and are still very much puzzled regarding the relationship between genetics and developmental biology, with the old one-gene, one-trait model proving inadequate and no clear new understanding taking its place. We thus are far too ignorant about the mechanisms of life to have any basis for a confident extrapolation from normal inheritance to macroevolutionary change. This is why evolutionary biologists continue to work backwards, inferring macroevolution from the fossil record, because when they try to work forwards, from first biological principles, they are stymied -- they can't account for how it happened. ID's job isn't to provide detailed pathways, because ID isn't a historical theory of origins. Neo-Darwinism is a historical theory of origins. It thus commits itself to the explication of detailed pathways. To the extent that it cannot deliver such pathways, it has failed by its own lights. ID is committed only to showing that living systems have informational properties that cannot be explained by chance and necessity alone, but require the input of intelligence. If it can show this, it has succeeded by its own lights. Where neo-Darwinism and ID clash is not over "evolution", but over neo-Darwinism's claim that the science of evolutionary biology has progressed so far that it can now assure the world that no intelligence was necessary to produce complex, integrated biological systems. ID has asked neo-Darwinism repeatedly to demonstrate this, with specific examples. Neo-Darwinism has come up blank every time. MacNeill of Cornell can't demonstrate it; Coyne of Chicago can't demonstrate it; Zachriel of Upper Podunk can't demonstrate it. Who can? T.Timaeus
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Until astronomers can provide a detailed account of the movement every molecule within a star, I will continue to reject their preposterous theories of stellar formation, aging, and death. Anything less is just hand-waving, blithely assuming that the known physical and chemical principles happen througout the entire star. Who's to say that stars aren't empty shells of pure light, provided their energy by the actions of intelligent agency? Why not let the star's surface — all of a star we can ever see — speak for itself? Timaeus:
Only evolutionary biologists, with the lowest level of explanatory achievement in any science known to man, have this kind of chutzpah.
If ID were the reigning paradigm, would it suddenly be able to provide those detailed pathways you're asking for? Yes, the record of life's history is messy, and very much incomplete. This is a problem for any hypothesis of life's origin and evolution. Is the Discovery Institute hiding a secret record of the DNA of every organism in a given line of descent?
If you do, I’ll eat my words.
No, you and others (like Behe) will say that we don't know whether that's how it happened, so it's a speculative just-so story.Lenoxus
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Mr Timaeus, Judging from comments on another site, Mr Zachriel believes that he has been banned again from UD, and will not be able to respond. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.Nakashima
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Are you about to publish it for us here? If you do, I’ll eat my words.
No worries there. Apparently Zachriel's commenting priviledges have been withdrawn.Zach Bailey
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 24 wrote: "You might say that Intelligent Design is consistent with this finding. But Intelligent Design is not specific enough to yield clear entailments. Indeed, that’s why Intelligent Design Advocates hardly ever bother with the messy details of biological research." Ah, yes, Zachriel. The messy details of biological research. Like laying out the genetic and developmental steps necessary to produce a camera eye, or an avian lung, or a foot from a fin, or a lung from an air bladder, or a sonar system from nothing, by chance and necessity, without the aid of intelligence. And also, explaining why, if these complex systems are so advantageous, all those creatures who *don't* possess them haven't died out. (There's an "entailment" for you.) I agree that scientific theories should deal with "messy details". The difficulty is that neo-Darwinism is not in a position to lecture anyone about this, as it is so barren of messy details itself. Of course, you were given several opportunities, on the December 19th thread, of laying out the "messy biological details" of the evolution of *any organ, organelle, system or organism of your choosing*, but evaded the challenge. And that's nothing new for Darwinians. Every book currently sitting in the Library of Congress, and every peer-reviewed scientific article in every existing journal of the life sciences, has similarly evaded the challenge. The fact is that Darwinians don't have the slightest clue how the eye, the lung, etc. evolved -- but still have the gall to claim that Darwinian theory should have the monopoly position in biology, and in high school science education. It is absolutely astounding. No scientist in any other field claims so much for ignorance that is so great. Only evolutionary biologists, with the lowest level of explanatory achievement in any science known to man, have this kind of chutzpah. Such little-brother boastfulness must be due to that old "physics envy", eh, Zachriel? Or am I wrong? Have you been preparing that detailed evolutionary map? Are you about to publish it for us here? If you do, I'll eat my words. If not, I'll continue to infer what I've inferred all along -- that neo-Darwinism is storytelling, speculation, bluff, and a disconnected jumble of scientific facts, none of it adding up to a a plausible mechanism, as the term "mechanism" is conceived of in adult sciences like physics, chemistry and engineering. T.Timaeus
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Joseph,
IOW I never proposed a grandfather.
Excellent! You never proposed a particular grandfather, but you are of course not denying that you have had - indeed must have had a grandfather? Just like we consider Tiktaalik looking like a candidate for the role of 'grandfather' but we are not proposing that she is the 'grandfather'. Fair enough?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Of course not, what I am saying is that it seems a safe bet that evidence ... will not be found. You wanna bet it will be found? I am afraid I won't be around to cash in...
But there isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates that the transformations required are even possible.
You're entitled to your opinion, but in your own words Absence of evidence is not... (Although I believe there's plenty of evidence strongly indicative of the possibility.)Cabal
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
and I never proposed a grandfather. Leviathan:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I take out of this that you don’t believe your existence is due to your mother and father’s parents on both sides mating in order to bring about your parents, and then your parents mating to bring about you?
PLease TRY to follow along. All I am saying ios that I never proposed who my grandfather was. That was in response to your statement:
I have a creeping suspicion that you are not a descendant of your proposed grandfather.
Ya see I never told you who my grandfathers were. IOW I never proposed a grandfather.Joseph
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Cabal:
True, and the discovery of 65(+) million years old human bones would be a serious blow against the ToE!
I doubt that.
But OTOH, with all the research and the complete absence of contrary evidence or indications, it seems a safe bet that evidence for neither rabbits in the Csmbrian nor humans coexisting with dinosaurs will be found.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides there are artifacts dated to millions of years.
Seems to me the accent now being on the power of genetics to determine evolutionary history – by and large confirming the history built on evidence from geology and paleontology – largely is overlooked, and, IMHO, little understood by opponents.
But there isn't any genetic data which demonstrates that the transformations required are even possible.Joseph
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
The discussion of transitional forms has some value in clarifying what is needed from the fossil record and what it demonstrates. I’d like to draw attention to a comment by the authors of the research paper that: “the ghost ranges of tetrapods and elpistostegids are greatly extended” (from the text of their Figure 5). Also, Janvier and Clement write: “The temporal mismatch implies the existence of long ‘ghost ranges’ among Devonian tetrapodomorphs” (from the text of their Figure 1). These features complement the characteristic of abrupt appearance in the fossil record. In order to allow time for gradualistic evolution, extended ghost ranges have to be invoked by Darwinists. A design prediction is that these ghost ranges are more an invention of Darwinism than the consequence of an imperfect fossil record. The Darwinian response must be: keep searching! Janvier and Clement write: “[the trackways] are likely to trigger a burst of field investigations into potential tetrapodomorph fish sites of Emsian or earlier age”. We await the findings with interest.David Tyler
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
Joseph,
And the absence of fossils cannot be used to argue that humans did not exist during the age of dinosaurs.
True, and the discovery of 65(+) million years old human bones would be a serious blow against the ToE! But OTOH, with all the research and the complete absence of contrary evidence or indications, it seems a safe bet that evidence for neither rabbits in the Csmbrian nor humans coexisting with dinosaurs will be found. Seems to me the accent now being on the power of genetics to determine evolutionary history - by and large confirming the history built on evidence from geology and paleontology - largely is overlooked, and, IMHO, little understood by opponents.Cabal
January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
It is indeed a question. How can we test your lineage? How much development did it take? How can it be measured? How many transitions were required?
and I never proposed a grandfather.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take out of this that you don't believe your existence is due to your mother and father's parents on both sides mating in order to bring about your parents, and then your parents mating to bring about you? You expect everyone here to believe you magically "poofed" into existence as a fully-formed adult male?Leviathan
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Leviathan:
Joseph, before I go about answering those questions you’ve posed, would you mind answering a few of mine?
If they are relevant.
I have a creeping suspicion that you are not a descendant of your proposed grandfather.
That is not a question and I never proposed a grandfather.
Unless you can show, with plain and direct evidence, each step in the development process from the fertilization of the egg, all the way through the fetal stages in the womb, and in addition each phase of childhood up through adulthood into this very day, I refuse to believe the silly notion that you are a product of a simple sperm and egg coming together in the body of a female human.
That isn't a question. And why should I care about your ignorance pertaining to reproduction?Joseph
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
What Darwin did was provide a testable explanation for the pattern [nested hierarchies]. But first, you have to agree that the pattern exists, that it can be objectively derived from character traits.
Nested hierarchies exists in extant species. In regards to the fossil record, the so-called "bush" is a pattern imposed upon the data by the imagination of the Darwinists. This is the "trade secret" of of paleontology that Gould referenced in his famous quote.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
Furthermore, although extant species can be organized into nested hierarchies, they do not resolve into a phylogenetic tree, or bush, except in the fertile imagination of Darwinists.Jehu
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Joseph, before I go about answering those questions you've posed, would you mind answering a few of mine? I have a creeping suspicion that you are not a descendant of your proposed grandfather. Unless you can show, with plain and direct evidence, each step in the development process from the fertilization of the egg, all the way through the fetal stages in the womb, and in addition each phase of childhood up through adulthood into this very day, I refuse to believe the silly notion that you are a product of a simple sperm and egg coming together in the body of a female human.Leviathan
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Lenoxus, The very definition of "transitional" and "intermediate" says that a nested hierarchy is not expected from descent with modification. Darwin "explained" the distinct categories by calling on well-timed extinctions. As for whales being descended from land animals- how can we test that? How many mutations did it take? How can it be measured? How many transitions were required?Joseph
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
I wonder if DATCG will ever, ever, ever forget to mention Darwin's bearlike-origin hypothesis. This confuses me. Why not harp on the silliness of the current hypothesis, whereby whales descend from carnivorous ungulates? A cow-wolf? That's almost as preposterous as giant flying reptiles… Except, of course, for the fossil remains. I'll just assert this out loud and repeatedly so that no UDer will find it ridiculous any more: WHALES DESCENDED FROM LAND-GOING MAMMALS. WHALES DESCENDED FROM LAND-GOING MAMMALS. Perhaps this descent was aided by non-naturalistic design, perhaps it happened in one generation per new species, but the actual descent is uncontroversially true. You know, Darwin made more interesting mistakes than that one — for example, for a while he believed in a mechanism for heredity that he ultimately had to admit was false. Why not pick on him for that? Because it would be silly? Joseph:
With descent with modification we should expect to see a hodge-podge of traits- mixing and matching- transitionals and intermediates- a real mess. We sure as heck shouldn’t expect to see a nice neat, orderly nested hierarchy.
Well, life past and present does demonstrate a remarkable "hodge-podge" in the sense of its diversity. But if you mean that we should expect numerous violations of nested hierarchy, um… what? That would only be the case if every organism had an equal chance of successfully reproducing with every other contemporary organism. Then we would see winged horses and other chimeras. In our universe, however, no outside force is needed to keep horses and birds from mating.Lenoxus
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Well, fossils have been used to argue that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.
And the absence of fossils cannot be used to argue that humans did not exist during the age of dinosaurs.Joseph
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
1 10 11 12 13 14

Leave a Reply