Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Incredible Shrinking Timeline

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction.

Fossil Reptilian Tracks

[BTW, let’s remember that the Darwinian objection to an absence of intermediate forms is the imperfection of the fossil record, with the difficulty of ‘soft-tissue’ fossilizing as a partial reason. But here we’re talking fossil footracks, which would seem even harder to form, and yet they’re found!]

Professor Mike Benton offers this:

“As it is, the new footprint evidence suggests a more dramatic pattern of replacement, where the sprawling animals that dominated Late Permian ecosystems nearly all died out, and the new groups that evolved after the crisis were upright. Any competitive interactions were compressed into a short period of time.”

Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.

Ah, yes, the incredible shrinking timeline for the Cambrian Explosion, the Reptilian Explosion and the Mammalian Explosion (This last one has been coming out over the last year or so, and now we’re seeing the Reptilian Explosion come to the fore). Let’s hear it for Darwinian ‘gradualism’. When will these guys ever give up?!? Behe, in his Edge of Evolution, documents that it has taken 10^16 to 10^20 replication events (progeny) of the eukaryotic malarial parasite for it to come up with a two amino acid change as a way of resisting cholorquinone. Assuming one year/generation for the reptiles, this meant evolutionists before had 20-30 million generations for ‘something’ to happen. And now? Darwinism is hopeless to explain these new discoveries. And, yet, they persist. Scientific faith is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

Comments
Granny @19
I think I mentioned the mechanism in my previous comment, mainly a change in the expression of the Hox genes which governs things like limb length and shape – in primates they also govern the position of the foramen magnum... A slight change in expression of the Hox gene controlling this is all it takes.
Hardly. Nearly every bone and muscle in the chimp anatomy must change, in some cases (like the pelvis) significantly, to conform to human anatomy. Some key muscles, mainly between the back and pelvis, must actually attach to different locations. A HOX change to trigger changes in the foramen magnum doesn't even come close to the magnitude of the necessary change.SpitfireIXA
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Upright vs. straddling seems like the least of Darwinism's concerns. At least it doesn't seem like a huge modification requiring vast amounts of modification or novel information. What is interesting is that it radiated to all reptiles. It is very odd how previously all reptiles were upright and it was competitive. But then in a geological blink of an eye all species begin to straddle and do so to this day. Odd. Did this happen through one mutation that spread to all species of reptile? If so how? Was there only one species at that time? Is it the result of convergent evolution?Jehu
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Mr PaV, If it changed it one animal’s gene, then how did this ‘upright’ reptile mate with a straddling type? Considering the Great Dane/Chihuahua stories floating around, I have a hard time taking your question seriously.Nakashima
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
PaV @ 22:
So, now, please tell me, why hasn’t the shrimp changed in over 300 million years? That would be 109 billion, 500 million nights.
They were awaiting the invention of cocktail sauce? The premise of your question is faulty. There are nearly 2,800 described species of shrimp (infraorder Caridae) worldwide with estimates of twice that number yet to be discovered and described. A huge variety of specialized lifestyles is also observed. In short, these animals display a history of rich adaptive radiation that has resulted a in tremendous variety of species, a pattern that is consistent with a picture of evolutionary descent with modification. For an interesting compilation concerning species found in the Phillipines with photos go here: http://www.chucksaddiction.com/Caridean.htmlDiffaxial
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
PaV (7), just curious why you used calculations for fixation of a neutral allele, when you refer earlier to a beneficial mutation. clearly, beneficial mutations will be selected for, increasing your probability of fixation by orders of magnitude.Khan
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
Re #6 Pav you write: You’re interested in what I think happened? I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You’re the evolutionist, after all. Above grannyape92 makes a suggestion as to what kind of mutation, followed by selection, might have caused the change. Your response is to ask for more detail. It all happened 250 million years ago so that's a big ask, but it is possible to at least start examining this proposal for plausability. How do we examine the plausibility of your alternative proposal - the act of intelligent design? This isn't a matter of balls in courts. It is a question of how do you set about assessing alternative hypotheses.Mark Frank
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
PaV: "If all it took was a slight change, then why didn’t it happen before?" 'Cause mutations occur randomly? "How did the Hox gene change? What were the mathematical odds of it changing?" Are the odds significant? I mean, when someone wins the lottery we know the chances of that particular person winning is extremely low but still, they won.ellazimm
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Pav asks: "If it changed it one animal’s gene, then how did this ‘upright’ reptile mate with a straddling type?" I see you go to the Ray Comfort school of evolutionary biology. I'm not sure how I'm engaging in hand waving other than that I didn't match the pathetic level of detail you seem to require. Given that the Hox genes have changed I would assume the odds of them changing were quite good. There is, however an abundant literature on the subject, feel free to research it. I reckon when one of you calculates the complex specified information in a Hox gene I might be inclined to go further. As to why it didn't happen sooner, or later for that matter, not having read the article on sprawling vs. upright behavior I couldn't say.grannyape92
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Diffaxial [20]
So, “over night” really means over two billion, one hundred ninety million nights?
Does this seem like a long time to you? I guess it does. So, now, please tell me, why hasn't the shrimp changed in over 300 million years? That would be 109 billion, 500 million nights.PaV
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
grannyape92 [19]:
A slight change in expression of the Hox gene controlling this is all it takes. One breif example from an abundant literature on the subject.
If all it took was a slight change, then why didn't it happen before? It's clear you haven't thought these matters through very clearly. You're indulging in hand-waving tactics. How did the Hox gene change? What were the mathematical odds of it changing? If it changed it one animal's gene, then how did this 'upright' reptile mate with a straddling type? And so on, and son on.PaV
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
PaV @ 18:
First you chastise me for not using “facts in evidence.”
I do. You cite "facts not in evidence" when you ask,
Who’s to say that this change isn’t moved up closer to the time of the mass extinction by a newer discovery?
One does not support an argument by citing imaginary future findings.
Then you say, “I’ll leave that to someone knowledgeable on the topic.”
With refers to a second assertion, your calculation, on which I have no comment. PaV @ 17:
If you want to believe that apes became humans through Darwinian mechanisms, then believing that reptiles became upright over night is yours, too, to believe.
So, "over night" really means over two billion, one hundred ninety million nights? Don't tell FedEx.Diffaxial
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of following the fossil evidence. In terms of the change from sprawling to upright walking the abstract for the paper indicates it happened during the course of six million years - as several of us have pointed out already. I think I mentioned the mechanism in my previous comment, mainly a change in the expression of the Hox genes which governs things like limb length and shape - in primates they also govern the position of the foramen magnum. In chimps and humans the foramen magnum start out in approximately the same position. During the process of growth it moves posteriorly in chimps and anteriorly in humans. A slight change in expression of the Hox gene controlling this is all it takes. One breif example from an abundant literature on the subject.grannyape92
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Diffaxial at [15]:
And do you really want to support your claims by citing facts not in evidence?
Third, read my post at [7]. Six million years isn’t enough time to bring a random mutation to fixation in 20-30 million years. So, tell me, what do you expect will happen with a population of 100,00 straddling reptiles in even less time? Any guess?
I’ll leave that to someone knowledgeable on the topic.
What an interesting post. First you chastise me for not using "facts in evidence." Then you say, "I'll leave that to someone knowledgeable on the topic." So you don't know what to make of my calculation, but you're sure it's wrong. Very interesting.PaV
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
grannyape92 at[14]:
Humans evolved from ape-like critters in the span of less time.
And HOW, exactly, did this happen? Isn't that the question? If you want to believe that apes became humans through Darwinian mechanisms, then believing that reptiles became upright over night is yours, too, to believe. But, again, what is the mechanism? How did the genome change, and how quickly, to transform from the one to the other?PaV
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
For the readers edification: Behe cites this number from a review article: White MJ (2004). Antimalarial Drug Resistance. Journal of Clinical Investigation 113(8): 1084-1092 Here is the actual quote from the article (my emphasis):
Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years (14). This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 1020 parasite multiplications.
White mentions this probability estimate in another paper: White MJ & W Pongtavornpinyo (2003).The de novo selection of drug-resistant malaria parasites. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 545–554 The authors talk about the estimate in the legend for Table 1:
The estimates for chloroquine and artemisinin are speculative. In the former case, this assumes two events in 10 years of use with exposure of 10% of the world’s falciparum malaria (Burgess & Young 1959; Martin & Arnold 1968; Looareesuwan et al. 1996; Su et al.1997; Nosten et al. 2000).)
Note : the reference to ‘Su et al 1997’, is reference ‘14’ in the review paperDave Wisker
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
PaV @ 11:
First of all, is, or is not, six million years a drop in the bucket of geological age?
Actually, no. A drop of water has a volume of approximately 50 microliters, or approximately 1/227000th of a 3 gallon bucket of water. 6 million years, on the other hand, is 1/750th of the age of the earth (4.5 billion years). So you're off by more than two orders of magnitude. Do you really want to characterize a change spanning six thousand millennia as "almost immediate?"
Who’s to say that this change isn’t moved up closer to the time of the mass extinction by a newer discovery?
And do you really want to support your claims by citing facts not in evidence?
Third, read my post at [7]. Six million years isn’t enough time to bring a random mutation to fixation in 20-30 million years. So, tell me, what do you expect will happen with a population of 100,00 straddling reptiles in even less time? Any guess?
I'll leave that to someone knowledgeable on the topic.Diffaxial
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Pav says: "First of all, is, or is not, six million years a drop in the bucket of geological age?" Well, no, it's not a drop in the bucket. Humans evolved from ape-like critters in the span of less time. Changing from sprawling to "upright" posture is a trivial change in comparison. In primates, for example, limb size and shape are controlled by Hox genes, consequently changes in posture wouldn't be that hard to evolve. P.S. Perhaps Behe should have looked at insecticide resistance in mosquitoes - particularly the Ace-1 mutations he would probably be changing his story...grannyape92
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Why are PaulBurnett and all the other 'check your mind at the door' Darwinists so prompt at jumping up and down like pulpit thumping preachers, screaming out their ubiquitous, and as in this case ridiculous, 'false positives' regarding alleged errors by ID scientists? And why do they always do this without having even tried to understand the issues or bothered to look up the facts? It's religion that drives them. Period.Borne
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Jehu: Fixed! Thanks!PaV
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Diffaxial at [9]: First of all, is, or is not, six million years a drop in the bucket of geological age? Second, this is apparently the ONLY tracks they've found. Who's to say that this change isn't moved up closer to the time of the mass extinction by a newer discovery? Third, read my post at [7]. Six million years isn't enough time to bring a random mutation to fixation in 20-30 million years. So, tell me, what do you expect will happen with a population of 100,00 straddling reptiles in even less time? Any guess? *Poof*PaV
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
PaV,
But even if we use replication events instead of generations, the argument still stands.
Agreed. But the number of generations can vary depending on populations size. It is purely reproductive events that Behe uses to quantify the occurrence of a two amino acid substitution. It is one of Behe's most profound, yet simple, points that it is not time but reproductive events that matters in terms of Darwinism. i.e. the greater the number of reproductive events the greater the probability any given mutation will occur. Time itself, independent of reproductive events does not increase the probability of a mutation occurring. Therefore, we can observe in one year with P. falceparum what would be the equivalent of millions of years in other organisms.Jehu
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
PaV @ OP:
It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately.
The article abstract:
Abstract: The end-Permian mass extinction, 252 million years (myr) ago, marks a major shift in the posture of tetrapods. Before the mass extinction, terrestrial tetrapods were sprawlers, walking with their limbs extended to the sides; after the event, most large tetrapods had adopted an erect posture with their limbs tucked under the body. This shift had been suspected from the study of skeletal fossils, but had been documented as a long process that occupied some 15–20 myr of the Triassic. This study reads posture directly from fossil tracks, using a clear criterion for sprawling vs erect posture. The track record is richer than the skeletal record, especially for the Early and Middle Triassic intervals, the critical 20 myr during which period the postural shift occurred. The shift to erect posture was completed within the 6 myr of the Early Triassic and affected both lineages of medium to large tetrapods of the time, the diapsids and synapsids.
So, "almost immediately" means that the transition occurred in just 60,000 centuries. *Poof*Diffaxial
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
PaulBurnett, I was going to point out the mistake in what you wrote, but PaV already pointed it out: It isn't a probability calculation, it is based on field data. Be careful when you use condescension, especially when you're wrong on a point. AtomAtom
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Jehu at [1]: Thanks, I've changed it. It's more the equivalent of a generation. One single P. falceparum generates 10^12 parasites (=replication events) in ONE person. But even if we use replication events instead of generations, the argument still stands. Here's what I mean: If you have a population size of 100,000, and the population is stable over time, then this would produce 2-3 x 10^12 individuals over a period of 20-30 million years. [I.e., 10^5 'net' offspring would be produced each year] What would happen in all this time? This number of offsprings would be enough to (1) produce a "good" mutations[we'll assume the probability to be one in 10^8], and (2) based on the probability of fixation in a population of 1/2N, with N here being 10^5, this would NOT be good enough to bring this ONE mutation to fixation within the population. But, now, let's ask this question: what was the population size of upright reptiles right after the Permian extinction? Seems to me it would be zero. You Darwinists out there: any answers?PaV
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Mark Frank: You're interested in what I think happened? I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You're the evolutionist, after all. This finding conforms to ID, and refutes Darwinism. Sorry, Mark, but the "ball is in "your side of the court." You tell me what happened, and how Darwin's theory explains it.PaV
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Paul Burnett at [2]:
Behe’s well documented mistake / misunderstanding here has been refuted by any number of scientists, such as Ken Miller, who wrote that what Behe determined was “…the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. He then leads his unsuspecting readers to believe that this spurious calculation is a hard and fast statistical barrier to the accumulation of enough variation to drive Darwinian evolution. … A mistake of this magnitude anywhere in a book on science is bad enough, but Behe has built his entire thesis on this error.
First, both you and Ken Miller are wrong. Behe didn't make a calculation. He used a calculation used by an expert in malarial resistance work. Second, I would urge you to reread--carefully--pages 55-59 of Behe's book. It's very clear how Behe got the numbers he was working with---they come from scientists working with ACTUAL field data---and he analyzes those numbers correctly when comparing the numbers for avoquine resistance to that of chloroquinone resistance. Why don't you simply look at Behe's Amazon blog which contains a reply to Miller's criticism? Here's his response:
Miller makes the same mistake here that I addressed earlier when replying to Jerry Coyne’s response. The number of one in 10^20 is not a probability calculation. Rather, it is statistical data. It is perhaps not too surprising that both Miller and Coyne make that mistake, because in general Darwinists are not used to constraining their speculations with quantitative data. The fundamental message of The Edge of Evolution, however, is that such data are now available. Instead of imagining what the power of random mutation and selection might do, we can look at examples of what it has done. And when we do look at the best, clearest examples, the results are, to say the least, quite modest. Time and again we see that random mutations are incoherent and much more likely to degrade a genome than to add to it — and these are the positively-selected, “beneficial” random mutations.
All you had to do was do a Google search to find Behe's response, but that was apparently more than you were willing to do. What a shame.PaV
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
PaulBurnett,
Behe’s well documented mistake / misunderstanding here has been refuted by any number of scientists, such as Ken Miller, who wrote that what Behe determined was “…the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. He then leads his unsuspecting readers to believe that this spurious calculation is a hard and fast statistical barrier to the accumulation of enough variation to drive Darwinian evolution. … A mistake of this magnitude anywhere in a book on science is bad enough, but Behe has built his entire thesis on this error. ” – http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....1055a.html
Your quote says that there is a flaw, but doesn't say what it is. ID opponents would do well to post materials that actually further the dialogue with actual substantive arguments rather than quotes which argue incompletely and by fiat.Clive Hayden
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Pav I am intrigued as to what you think happened?Mark Frank
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
"PaV" quotes: "Behe, in his Edge of Evolution, documents that it has taken 10^16 to 10^20 generations of the eukaryotic malarial parasite to come up with a two amino acid change as a way of resisting cholorquinone." Behe's well documented mistake / misunderstanding here has been refuted by any number of scientists, such as Ken Miller, who wrote that what Behe determined was "...the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. He then leads his unsuspecting readers to believe that this spurious calculation is a hard and fast statistical barrier to the accumulation of enough variation to drive Darwinian evolution. ... A mistake of this magnitude anywhere in a book on science is bad enough, but Behe has built his entire thesis on this error. " - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7148/full/4471055a.html Intelligent design proponents would do well to read additional materials rather than rely on one flawed book - and then base further calculations on the flaw.PaulBurnett
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Behe, in his Edge of Evolution, documents that it has taken 10^16 to 10^20 generations of the eukaryotic malarial parasite to come up with a two amino acid change as a way of resisting cholorquinone.
I believe that is 10^20 reproductive events, not generations.Jehu
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
1 7 8 9

Leave a Reply