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
Zachriel:
What Darwin did was provide a testable explanation for the pattern.
That is false. Darwin had to revert to well-timed extinctions to "explain" the pattern.
But first, you have to agree that the pattern exists, that it can be objectively derived from character traits.
One thing is certain it is not a pattern derived via descent with modification. Ya see with descent with modification we should expect to see many transitionals and intermediates. These would blur the lines of distinction required by nested hierarchies.Joseph
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
This reminds me of the recent discovery (Ardi?) that showed that humans are not descendants of apes, but that we share a common ancestor with them. Mr. Hayden, Please do not ban Nakashima. He makes the most reasoned arguments from a Darwin perspective here and so is most helpful in refining ID theories.Collin
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Zachriel, Your Wikipedia link on transitional fossils does not help you:
Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition.
Did you get that? Do you understand it?Joseph
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Zack, I disagree. You need debate.
There is plenty of that. My point is that it is a clever strategy to refocus the argument to one about the validity of whatever the current version of Darwinism happens to be. The design argument gets sidelined by these endless back-and-forths about nested heirarchies and transitional fossils. I see Timaeus, jerry, vjtorley kairosfocus and others spending time and effort producing long and detailed refutations to darwinists. All very well but, as a very occasional commenter, I, if I wasn't a long time lurker, might get the impression that this blog is primarily concerned with the shortcomings of darwinism. The real, positive argument for design needs to be the focus of debate. People should read Joseph's posts and learn from them.Zach Bailey
January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
Nakashima: I think you know as well as I that the only group that claims absolute knowledge of past events is the YEC community.
Well, fossils have been used to argue that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Mr Hayden, Thank you for your concern. This is factually wrong, the Darwinitwits have most certainly, over and over, claimed knowledge of the past to “evidence” their fancy of evolution. Mrs O’Leary is not engaging in agit-prop, and quite frankly, I don’t appreciate the accusation. There was nothing propagandistic in what she said. I am going to ask you to apologize, or you will no longer comment here. I have gone back and looked at some of the coverage from the initial publication on Tiktaalik. I found on the popular site Pharyngula, this statement about Tiktaalik's limbs: Those limbs tell us something about the evolution of limbs. Tiktaalik was definitely not a terrestrial animal, but had developed muscular, bony limbs and a strong pectoral girdle that had helped it prop itself up on the substrate, perhaps even holding itself partly out of the water. My emphasis added. So it seems that I must stand corrected, Darwinists do sometimes claim absolute knowledge. I apologize to Mrs O'Leary, yourself, Mr Vjtorley for misleading him, and any readers of my previous comment.Nakashima
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Joseph: Excuse me but just how are you using the word “transition“?
"Transitional fossil" is a scientific term and is defined as an organism which exhibits traits common to both ancestral and derived groups. Transitional implies being closer to the common ancestor, while an intermediate is more derived. Transitional FossilZachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Indeed, that’s why Intelligent Design Advocates hardly ever bother with the messy details of biological research.
Yet that is exactly what irreducible complexity entails. As for details it is your position that hardly ever bothers with any. And when they do come it is always in support of slight, oscillating variations.Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Cabal:
I beg to differ. What a find like for instance Tiktallik shows, is that there were species with just the right anatomy as expected/predicted to have been living at a certain time period in a specific location.
If tetrapods already existed then why would someone be looking for a transtional form in strata YOUNGER than that? BTW Cabal I understand the difficulties in correctly placing fossils. That is why I laugh every time I hear of a new "transitional".Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Bushy is a pattern, of course.
Not just one pattern and not just any pattern.
It’s a nested hierarchy with many stems along short branches.
Spewage alert! Zachriel- you don't know what a nested hierarchy is. And a bush- the pattern it makes- isn't a nested hierarchy.
The nested hierarchy is a mathematical pattern, and phylogeny makes very specific empirical predictions, i.e. correlations between various traits.
And correlations between traits exist because that is how the design was set-up. 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.Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
The terms “transitional” and “intermediate” are often used interchangeably, but transitional implies being closer to the common ancestor, while intermediate is derived.
Excuse me but just how are you using the word "transition"? It doesn't appear you are using it how it is widely accepted.
Rarely can it be known if a particular individual fossil is on the direct lineage to later organisms.
True- What makes it all the more difficult is that no one even knows if the transformations required are even possible.Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Jehu: Jehu: LOL! “bushy” = without pattern. Zachriel: Bushy is a pattern, of course. It’s a nested hierarchy with many stems along short branches. Jehu: The system of nested hierarchies predates Darwinism ...
But what you originally wrote indicated that it wasn't a pattern. Now you seem to agree it is a pattern.
Jehu: To attempt to credit the success of Linnaeus’ nested hierarchies to Darwinism is disingenuous.
The dastards! What Darwin did was provide a testable explanation for the pattern. But first, you have to agree that the pattern exists, that it can be objectively derived from character traits.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
Bushy is a pattern, of course. It’s a nested hierarchy with many stems along short branches. The nested hierarchy is a mathematical pattern, and phylogeny makes very specific empirical predictions, i.e. correlations between various traits.
The system of nested hierarchies predates Darwinism and was invented by a creationist, Carl Linnaeus, who wrote:
The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone. The study of nature would reveal the Divine Order of God's creation, and it was the naturalist's task to construct a "natural classification" that would reveal this Order in the universe.
To attempt to credit the success of Linnaeus' nested hierarchies to Darwinism is disingenuous.Jehu
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
DATCG: Predicting swamp creatures will be found in swamp…
Sure, a Nunavut valley is exactly where you would look for a swamp creature.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Zack, I disagree. You need debate.DATCG
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
I must go... the latest evidence appears to be a Forest of Trees. Not bushes, not one single long line of common ancestory. And I do not think this is very controversial. There are evolutionist putting this forth today as a possible theory. And Gould was correct about the fossil record. Not much has changed since his days of honest introspection of the failed Darwinian record.DATCG
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
efren ts, please, lol... do you really think thats a prediction? Let me tell you something about the 375 million river delta... thats not a prediction, its a given. You will find fossils like this in every river delta and swamp if you continue to look, with sufficient funds. Looking in what is known territory for creatures like this is not a prediction. It is not a prediction of darwinism or darwinist. A real prediction would be if they said, they would find something unexpected, not a water creature, lol. What a bunch of overblown claims. And I mean that with no disrepect to you. Only the Darwinians that blow this way out of proportion and then try to make it a "transitional" fossil. It clearly is not. Never was. At best, it may be a side branch. So what, thats nothing new. Does it take skill sets to find fossils? Obviously, but that is not proof of Darwinian gradualism, or is it proof of any prediction related to atheistic Darwinian evolution. It is only evidence of common sense. I've read where Creationist find fossils all the time because - gee - they predicted they would be there. Does that prove Darwinism? No, of course not. Are you going to turn the table and say because Creationist knew where to look for fossils, it proves Creation? Remember the Coelacanth? It to was claimed a transitional. At best we know sea creatures exist in seas, swampland creatures exist in river deltas or swamps, land creatures exist on land. But no evidence exist that tie together these creatures. Only story telling about what is perceived to match an inference by Darwinist.DATCG
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
How-to be a darwinist... oh gee... they didn't like that story... bear to whale... so lets give them a new story. We can point to a picture of artist drawing and say it represents the "transition" fossil today. Dawkins is such a good TV Darwinist... look - see - this creature could be the ancestor of whales, it once lived on land. Evidence? None. Zilch. Only imagination of what may have happened in "transitions". There are not scientific facts giving details of how it happened, only that it is "factual" that it did. There are fictional accounts, with many "maybe" "could have" "might" and "probable" statements. As sorted above and reviewed well by others, this is the problem with Darwinist fictional accounts. It is constant confusion, not science, it is constant story-telling, not science. At best, you can infer, but it is sold as if it is rocket science, when in fact is is glorified scientific fiction in so many instances updated with more glorified science fiction. Same fiction, just different fossils each time. And sure, the scientist have PhDs. But that is meaningless if they cannot be there or reproduce it. As a result, we get science fiction, very high caliber, yes, indeed - for children, teens, and those that refuse to mature and question. The debate is not about evolution even. As many IDist believe in some form of Common Descent. Its about the shoddy science and ficitional story telling that Darwinist present to the public year after year on TV and in print as FACTual atheistic views of evolution... when its NOT. It is story telling. It is their bible and they worship Darwin in churches today. They have created their own god.DATCG
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden
I am going to ask you to apologize, or you will no longer comment here.
I don't know why Darwinian commenters are permitted a voice here at all; all they do is confuse the issue to one on the validity of evolutionary theory. This obscures the real argument: the positive argument for design!Zach Bailey
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
DATCG:
Predicting swamp creatures will be found in swamp… wow, Mr. Nakashima, I see you’re still peddling strawman arguments.
Actually, Shubin did more than just look in any old swamp. He was looking for exposed Devonian rocks of a specific age (~375 mya) formed in a freshwater river delta.efren ts
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Predicting swamp creatures will be found in swamp... wow, Mr. Nakashima, I see you're still peddling strawman arguments. I have not missed much. Next thing you know, you'll show us where Darwinist predicted fish in a lake. Once again, the fictional stories of Tiktaalik are overrated and prove nothing. It is not a transitional fossil. Busted yet again. Maybe next you can wow us with Darwin's prediction of Bears turning into whales. Afterall, this is how Darwinism works. Imagine it happened, much like Hollywood imagines Global Warming. Anyone seen a bear-whale lately? All they have to do is swim a long time in the water, knipping at bugs and stuff, lol. There are good arguments put forward here about the stamp collecting process of Darwinist. And there is ample rebuttal to the BS fodder statement by Zachriel insisting IDist do not do dirty work. What a load of Darwinian Bear-whale fallacy. And lets not just limit this to IDist, but to anyone that doubts gradualistic processes of the failed Darwinian paradigm. Dr. John Sanford, genetic gene gun inventer, multi-patent holder and many more like him exist that have said the evolutionary fictional story telling was and is a great waste of time and money. Gradualism has failed. Only in the fairy-tale fantasies of Dawkins and Dawkinite brights where new creatures replace a Darwinian bear, is the failed paradigm still pushed. Imagining the new creature is any better than a bear-whale story is pure disney fantasy. That this bilge is pushed on the public year after year is a travesty. Just like Al Gore's kickback, business funded adventure scheme of Global Warming. http://www.IceCap.us And just like Climate-gate, Darwin-gate will be busted open one day. Better trash all your emails Darwinist.DATCG
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
The qualifier was “hardly ever.” As most of the studies you pointed to don’t state and test an entailment of ‘Intelligent Design,’ it isn’t clear you have justified your case.
All of the studies do indeed "entail" ID. As well as everything else from Dr. Marks and Dr. Dembski in the Evo. Informatics Lab, and Michael Behe, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Ann Gauger, Charlie Thaxton, Douglas Axe, Gerald Schroeder, John Lennox, Michael Denton, David Berlinski, etc.Clive Hayden
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Joseph,
Lenoxus, It appears that you do not understand the meaning of “transitional”. Transitionals do not just occupy side branches. Transitionals are supposed to be the link between two other forms. Also this is not to trash Common Descent- just the “science” behind it. + In comment 7 Cabal links to PZ- PZ doesn’t seem to understand the concept of transitionals. In order to be a transitional it must appear IN THE LINEAGE. Otherwise it is known as a mosaic- as is the platypus.
I beg to differ. What a find like for instance Tiktallik shows, is that there were species with just the right anatomy as expected/predicted to have been living at a certain time period in a specific location. How many sibling species may have been around at the same time? I presume it will take more that just a few fossils covering a transition lasting millions of years to determine which are direct lineage and which belong in theoretical dead end branches. It is like we go to a cemetery and dig up all the bodies. How can we determine who left descendants and who didn’t? But some of them will most most likely be in the LINEAGE? Think it over.Cabal
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden: Sure they do, and that link shows plenty of research in ID.
It did? Though not having read every article, most of them appear to be studies of patterns without regard to any stated entailments of 'Intelligent Design.' (And if that is the best, then it's pretty meager at that.)
Clive Hayden: ... but your initial assertion was not “relative” to anything else ...
The qualifier was "hardly ever." As most of the studies you pointed to don't state and test an entailment of 'Intelligent Design,' it isn't clear you have justified your case.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Nakashima,
I think you know as well as I that the only group that claims absolute knowledge of past events is the YEC community. Mrs O’Leary is engaging in agit-prop.
This is factually wrong, the Darwinitwits have most certainly, over and over, claimed knowledge of the past to "evidence" their fancy of evolution. Mrs O'Leary is not engaging in agit-prop, and quite frankly, I don't appreciate the accusation. There was nothing propagandistic in what she said. I am going to ask you to apologize, or you will no longer comment here.Clive Hayden
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
That’s it? Looking at their selected publications, most don’t even test a valid Intelligent Design hypothesis.
Sure they do, and that link shows plenty of research in ID. But that is of course not all, that is just the Biologic Institute, that is not Scott Minnich and Michael Behe. I suppose your next comment will be that it is not "enough" research to satisfy "you", maybe you'll compare it to science as a whole or Darwinian biology in particular, but your initial assertion was not "relative" to anything else, it was, quote, "Indeed, that’s why Intelligent Design Advocates hardly ever bother with the messy details of biological research." which pertains to the ID research itself, not by comparison to anything Darwinian, but a statement of what research ID advocates do themselves. And in this light, the statement that "Intelligent Design Advocates hardly ever bother with the messy details of biological research" is flat out false.Clive Hayden
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Indeed, that’s why Intelligent Design Advocates hardly ever bother with the messy details of biological research. Clive Hayden: This is just flat wrong.
That's it? Looking at their selected publications, most don't even test a valid Intelligent Design hypothesis. Granted, the Intelligent Design community is rather tiny, but that just emphasizes the fact that they have had little success in attracting additional researchers. There's just no clear entailments that generate significant research such as are found in mainstream scientific journals.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
johnnyB, #11, excellent!computerist
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
Indeed, that’s why Intelligent Design Advocates hardly ever bother with the messy details of biological research.
This is just flat wrong. Not to mention Michael Behe and Scott Minnich. Clive Hayden
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
The reason ID allows for shaving off of hypothetical creatures from the fossil re[c]ord is that ID does need them to exist – information is a sufficient explanation.
Sorry, I don't follow this - how does information cause creatures to come into existence? "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was Information"? Sorry, I got carried away. Anyway, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by information being a sufficient explanation - something very different to what I was thinking?
The point is that we should let the fossil record itself speak to its own completeness, rather than using Darwinism to tell us what is missing.
Here is a nice post that provides a back-of-an-envelope calculation which suggests that there might still be a lot of fossils to find. It doesn't use any evolutionary theory.Heinrich
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
1 11 12 13 14

Leave a Reply