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
Mr Vjtorley, I think that Tiktaalik provides evidence for Darwinism by being found where it was predicted to be found. You cite Mrs O'Leary: The Darwinist says, There! – we have found a missing link, so now we KNOW! what happened…. 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. Further, citing an unamed information theorist: The problem, he said, is not with the changes that are required to produce an amphibian but with determining exactly how such changes came about: He then goes on to suggest genomic comparisons. I think that is an excellent suggestion. While it seems that coelocanth mitochondrial DNA has been sequenced, the whole genome is not. But let us say for the sake of argument that genomic comparisons led to a hypothesis that ancient genome F could be transformed into ancient genome T and then A via a series of duplications and substitutions. This would still be just "the changes", but not "how they got there". Would you or this theorist actually be satisfied? More interestingly, will you apply the same test - exactly how such changes came about to an intelligent design based hypothesis, if one is ever advanced? Mrs O'Leary (and you do quote approvingly) seems to think that a distinction has been made here between Darwinist and ID modes of thinking. What is it? The Darwinist is interested in how the information arrived in the system also, and is going to answer that material changes in the material representation of the information is sufficient explanation. By chance, a gene was duplicated. By chance, a base was substituted, inserted or deleted. By chance, a virus inserted DNA from another entity. Information arrives in the system by chance. I've never heard that ID thinking provides a different set of mechanisms than these, merely an argument that some set of them is improbable within certain resource constraints. But that distinction of improbability is not present in what you quote. So yes, I think you do need to say more.Nakashima
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
David Tyler: Many of the claims of Darwinians (for example, that over 99% of species are unrepresented in the fossil record) are inferences from their gradualistic presuppositions.
A scientific hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences. The Theory of Evolution posits that changes will occur in viable stages. Finding an intermediate fossil is a confirmation of that hypothesis. That's why scientists will spend years looking for such evidence. 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.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Heinrich @ 9 and 13 johnnyb has provided some helpful thoughts. The issue here is not to win your agreement with the points made, but to allow you to understand the ID paradigm. Many of the claims of Darwinians (for example, that over 99% of species are unrepresented in the fossil record) are inferences from their gradualistic presuppositions. Those of us who have not bought into the Darwinian mindset are therefore totally unimpressed by their conclusions.David Tyler
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Even if Tiktaalik were a perfect transitional form, it would not constitute evidence for Darwinism, and it would not tell us how fish evolved into amphibians. An old post by Denyse (dated 24 December 2007) explains why. It highlights the difference between intelligent design thinking and Darwinist thinking so well that I cannot resist quoting an extract:
Tiktaalik helps illustrate the difference between the approach of scientists who are convinced Darwinists and that of scientists who view the problems of evolution primarily in terms of information theory (intelligent design). The Darwinist says, There! - we have found a missing link, so now we KNOW! what happened.... The information theorist I consulted had an entirely different approach to the problem. He said that we do not know what happened, because we do not know how the information that produced this change came to be in the system. We have observed only the change itself, not the arrival of the information. The problem, he said, is not with the changes that are required to produce an amphibian but with determining exactly how such changes came about:
There are two ways to look at the problem in going from fish to Tiktaalik and then from Tiktaalik to amphibian. If we merely look at a body plan then it doesn't take too much imagination to say that the fish evolved into Tiktaalik and then the Tiktaalik evolved into the amphibian through natural selection. That is a very crude way of looking at evolution, however .... very 19th centuryish. It's kind of like looking at a laptop computer and a pizza box ... there are similarities in structure and an argument could be made (provided one did not open either the laptop or the pizza box) that natural processes had turned the pizza box into a shape of a laptop. The other approach (more appropriate to the 21st century) is to look at the coding changes in the genome that would be required to go from a fish to Tiktaalik and from Tiktaalik to an amphibian. It never ceases to amaze me that Darwinists can so blithely create a scenario based on morphology and not so much as breath one sentence about the massive coding changes that would be required. Have they no concept of 21st century information requirements? Of course it is true that we do not have the DNA of Tiktaalik, but we do have DNA for Coelecanth and for amphibians. Decent science would require, at the very least, a careful analysis of the coding difference between Coelecanth and some representative amphibian before a scientist would go out on a limb and announce that the evolutionary change (without any ID input) is even feasible, let alone represented by Tiktaalik.
One reason why the intelligent design controversy is intractable is that many scientists are stuck in the primitive mode of discovering that a change occurred and declaring that "Darwin's theory explains this!" They then make up stories to show how Darwin's theory could explain it. You know the sort of thing: "Tiktaalik survived by propping itself up and eating small fish in shallow waters." Maybe Tiktaalik did that. But that does not explain how he found himself to be in any position to do it. That kind of just-so story will not wash any more, because the enormous inner complexity of the design of life forms requires a more detailed accounting than that. Darwin's theory is simply not adequate to the task, and the resources spent propping it up would be better used otherwise. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Need I say more?vjtorley
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
johnnyb: Actually, the current definition of “transitional” is so muddled that it includes anything that provides information (whatever that means) about how a transition might have occurred.
The terms "transitional" and "intermediate" are often used interchangeably, but transitional implies being closer to the common ancestor, while intermediate is derived. Rarely can it be known if a particular individual fossil is on the direct lineage to later organisms.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
JohnnyB, The definition of "transition" is very clear. Methinks it is the evolutionists who are muddled.Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Joseph - Actually, the current definition of "transitional" is so muddled that it includes anything that provides information (whatever that means) about how a transition might have occurred.johnnyb
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
johnnyb: Without Darwinian assumptions, 80% of creatures who ever existed might still be alive, but adding Darwinian assumptions 99.99% of them are extinct!
There is not only a succession of species, but a succession of ecosystems. Most species around today did not exist in the time of the dinosaurs. There were no Panthera or Ursidae. No Bovidae or Hominidae. But they did have ancestors! Then consider earlier eras! As always, we have to start with Common Descent and establish the overall historical pattern.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Jehu: LOL! “bushy” = without pattern.
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.Zachriel
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
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.Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Heinrich - The reason ID allows for shaving off of hypothetical creatures from the fossil reord is that ID does need them to exist - information is a sufficient explanation. Darwinism needs a certain pattern of organisms to exist. As for my comparison, I agree that the fossil record probably does not hold every species to ever exist. My point was to show the dramatic difference between available evidence and Darwinian assumptions, and just to what degree they differ. Without Darwinian assumptions, 80% of creatures who ever existed might still be alive, but adding Darwinian assumptions 99.99% of them are extinct! That's quite a difference in scale. My 80% number is probably not the true one, and there have probably been more than 250,000 species in history (though many of them are probably still alive). 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.johnnyb
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
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.Joseph
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
One thing which I think ID can contribute to any historical aspect of earth history is shaving off hypothetical creatures.
How will ID do that, other by by fiat (i.e. saying they don't exist)? How will it build an argument that these hypotheticals don't exist?
There are roughly 250,000 species that have been identified in the fossil record, and well over 1,000,000 species that exist today. Taken at face value, even if every species in the fossil record has gone extinct (which they haven’t), that means that 80% of species that ever existed ARE STILL ALIVE
Eh? You're assuming that every species there has been has been found fossilised. I'm, well, sceptical about this - do tardigrades fossilise well, for example?Heinrich
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT
Lennox,
Because of the “bushy” nature of evolution, one will only find closer and closer approximations to an exact “missing link”, in the form of cousin speices.
LOL! "bushy" = without pattern. The pattern is imposed by the imagination of the Darwinist. It is like a rorschach tedt. No matter the sequence, the Darwinist thinks he sees a pattern.Jehu
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
Heinrich - One thing which I think ID can contribute to any historical aspect of earth history is shaving off hypothetical creatures. While there are certainly many creatures which haven't yet been found, and I'm sure many of these creatures include chimeras of existing features in existing creatures, there is no reason to believe that there must be creatures where none have been found or evidenced. Darwinism has a bad habit of perpetually adding dashed lines in-between creatures for where it expects to find relationships. Instead, ID says that, perhap we can just take the fossil record as we find it. Perhaps what we need to be doing is measuring, say, the average known time fossils go missing from the fossil record, and use that plus statistical completeness estimates to estimate the error bounds of the fossil record. Instead, Darwinists will substitute a narration of what they think happened in the past to substitute for 99% of earth history, rather than simply looking at what's there. Here's a simple example - extinction estimates. Darwinists will say that 99.99% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Well, that's actually a bunch of B.S. There are roughly 250,000 species that have been identified in the fossil record, and well over 1,000,000 species that exist today. Taken at face value, even if every species in the fossil record has gone extinct (which they haven't), that means that 80% of species that ever existed ARE STILL ALIVE. That's quite a stretch. So where do Darwinists get their number? By assuming that innumerable species existed in the transitional spaces. Why? Because they _must_ have existed there for their theory to be true. ID says that Darwinism is simply an unnecessary hypothesis. We should take the fossil record as it comes to us, measure its completeness on its own terms, and determine its limits as we can determine apart from Darwinism. After doing so, we might find certain features of the fossil record to be consistent with Darwinism, or we might not. The problem is that the Darwinists distort what they see to fit into their picture of Darwinism. There are also a set of Silurian trackways which were thought to be arthropods...why? Because it was thought that tetrapods hadn't existed yet. Basically, Darwinism has been forcing the way in which we view the fossil record and earth history. When it is in conflict with the data, over and over again, the data gets modified to fit with Darwinism. ID makes a clean break with the Darwinistic picture, and would allow us to take the animal distributions within the fossil record much more on its own terms.johnnyb
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Lenoxus - You asked a great question regarding ID and common descent. This is a common confusion, so I'll try to clarify it for you. I'll refer to ID with Common Descent as IDCD. ID is consistent with both common descent and special creation. However, the ID form of common descent is much different than the Darwinian form. The Darwinian form of common descent says that new features must have arisen slowly, with each added piece being a selected accident. Therefore, Darwinian evolution assumes that change is normally gradual and normally parsimonious (that is, a complex feature doesn't usually evolve twice). IDCD, however, doesn't have to obey those principles. IDCD holds that the information was embedded in the first organism that guides future evolution. Most people don't know that the Amoeba contains 100x more base pairs than humans. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that the original organism had lots of genetic material to contribute to evolution. Therefore, because of this front-loading of information, there is no reason to think that there is a single lineage that became the tetrapods. There is no reason to think that a given feature had to have gradually evolved. Highly complex, specialized tissue can appear "all-of-a-sudden" because the organism had been carrying around that information the whole time, but only expressed it based on a certain timing or event or even as a stochastic combination of existing features. So, IDCD is neither gradualistic, nor does it necessarily lend itself to a very parsimonious phylogeny. It often "looks like" special creation to an outside observer because it has many of the same issues with Darwinism that special creation does. They both have different forms of life beginning abruptly with fully-formed features. The difference is that special creation often uses an immediate mode of creation, while IDCD often uses secondary causes from the first life. There are also mixes of the two, where there are multiple created kinds, but each created kind was front-loaded with latent information (this is my personal view). Hopefully that clears it up for you.johnnyb
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
(From Dr. Tyler's ARN post):
Second, the evolution of tetrapods is an important test case for the relevance of design thinking - we ask the question whether tetrapods are here by Design or whether Law+Chance processes are sufficient explanation. Research is proceeding assuming the latter option, but the new discovery suggests that pursuing multiple working hypotheses (including design-based options) might be more prudent.
Which raises the obvious question - how would one go about testing the ID hypothesis, or at least using it to develop our understanding of these fossils?Heinrich
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Quote of the day - no doubt! "Self correcting should mean something more robust than constantly wiping the egg off one's face"Upright BiPed
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
No comment required: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/casey-luskin-em.html#moreCabal
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
There was something about this whole story that really caught my attention – the sheer level of confusion. Sometimes, people try to get away with saying “science is self-correcting” – but the trouble is, we are expected to believe provisionally whatever is barked at this moment – only to be told it’s wrong later – And no, wait – that other thing is also wrong, and – now the next thing turns out to be wrong too. There isn’t enough certainty here to justify anyone other than a heavy duty specialist spending a lot of time on it, let alone lobbies going to court to force kids in public schools to learn it. Never mind pretentious social nonsense like Michael Bloomberg hailing the now-discredited Ida fossil. The scary part is that a lot of these people don’t seem to get the fact that they are losing credibility because they are not credible. “Self-correcting” should mean something more robust than constantly wiping the egg off one’s face. I don't know what to think about common descent. I suppose it's true. It's certainly plausible. But if my family history had looked anything like this, I would certainly place no faith whatever in genealogy. The problem, in my view, is overinflated claims aimed at supporting the Darwin industry. Take the Darwin hype away and we can just say at certain points, "We don't know what happened." That would do a considerable amount to restore credibility to the whole enterprise.O'Leary
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Correction: I should have said "intermediates between them have been lost".Lenoxus
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
VMartin:
If platypus is fossil than the wolf is fossil as well. You should perhaps write more on it. Who is ancestor of “transitional platypus” and who is it’s descendant?
There are fossil platypuses, but I was referring to current living ones. "Transitional", as I'm using the term, does not mean "descending from one known specific species and ancestral to another". It simply means "retaining the features of two distantly related groups". Because of the "bushy" nature of evolution, one will only find closer and closer approximations to an exact "missing link", in the form of cousin speices. Tiktaalik is a cousin of whatever fishapod is our ancestor, but that exact fishapod may never be known. I was just using the platypus because it's a striking example of an overlap of mammals and reptiles, exactly as the evolutionary TOL would have it. (Some IDers believe its DNA and morphology also show evidence of otherwise "unrelated" species, indicating some sort of "gene splicing" in its ancestry.) Regarding whether it's "still legitimate to refer to old-fashioned transitional forms"… One reason it's not so contradictory is that some clades are strikingly different and the intermediate between them has been lost forever. If there were lots of monotreme speices alive today, instead of just two, the bridge between mammals and reptiles would be much more "solid", and in that sense, the platypus and echidna would be "less" transitional than they are. Likewise with Tiktaalik and its footprint-making relative here.Lenoxus
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Lenoxus: Similarly, the platypus is a transitional too (unless you wish to see it as chimeric).
The better terminology is to say the platypus has intermediate features. It's not chimeric. The platypus "beak" is not a true beak, but a spongy, sensitive organ. Egg-laying is the primitive condition.Zachriel
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Lenoxus Unless the fossil is fake, it is a “crocoduck”. Similarly, the platypus is a transitional too (unless you wish to see it as chimeric). If platypus is fossil than the wolf is fossil as well. You should perhaps write more on it. Who is ancestor of "transitional platypus" and who is it's descendant?VMartin
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Mark Frank stated here yesterday morning:
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.
I think that covers the bases here. Tiktaalik is almost exactly what you want in terms of a key "transitional"; that it is a side-branch is irrelevant. Unless the fossil is fake, it is a "crocoduck". Similarly, the platypus is a transitional too (unless you wish to see it as chimeric). The question for ID is, in what way was the designer involved in early tetrapods? Fossils being discovered in the "wrong order" has nothing to do with ID unless that's something ID predicts. But for what compelling reason would the designer do that, if they could just as easily work through conventional common descent? Ultimately, I guess the whole point of trashing transitionals is to trash CD… so I must ask, is common descent bogus or not? At this point, I take the ID position on CD to be "CD is true, but in our heart of hearts, we wish it weren't." (In asking this, I consider it a separate question from that of saltation. Perhaps Tiktaalik was saltated from its egg, but it would still be part of a — much smaller — TOL.)Lenoxus
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
1 12 13 14

Leave a Reply