Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
A comparison of scholarship: typical creationist vs. qualified biologist(s)
So, I was cruising around online looking up information regarding Elpistostege, an organism that I'd dub more or less transitional between ancestral Sarcopterygian fish and derived amphibians.
Here's a picture:
Anyways, I find a critique of this transitional animal at a random creationist webpage in my googling efforts (largely in trying to come up with pictures) which can be found here:
Elpistostege seems to be base on less complete fossil evidence than Panderichthys. While they seem to have a complete skull the rest of the available skeleton is an incomplete spine that does not extend to the tail.
Now, compare this analysis of the relevent character traits of this organism (a must in figuring out where it falls taxonomically) with information found from the excellent Palaeos website:
Elpistostege: E. watsoni Westoll, 1938.
Range: Late Devonian (Givetian? or Frasnian) of North America (Canada)
Characters: snout prominent [VS91]; mouth subterminal [SA85]; premaxilla narrow at symphysis, accommodating unpaired median rostral [SA85]; laterally, premaxilla widens and then tapers under septomaxilla [1] to a narrow suture with maxilla [SA85]; maxilla forms middle section of upper jaw, terminating anteriorly on premaxilla at the level of the lateral rostral [SA85]; snout bones numerous [SA85]; unpaired median postrostral may be present [VS91]; lacrimals uniquely large, broadening anterolaterally [SA85] [VS91]; frontals paired, broad, elongate & meeting parietals anterior to orbit [SA85]; frontals are widest bone in skull roof [SA85]; frontals have interdigitating sutures with postrostrals & nasals [SA85]; prefrontals reaching at least as far anteriorly as frontals [SA85]; prefrontals extensively underlie frontal & lacrimal [SA85]; postfrontal ridge ("eyebrows") [SA85]; parietal meets frontal anterior to orbit [SA85]; parietals narrow between orbits & expanding posteriorly [SA85]; parietal foramen slightly raised [SA85]; parietal extensively underlies postorbital [SA85]; postorbital broadly overlaps parietal [SA85]; parietals & postparietals roughly same anteroposterior length [SA85]; postparietals embayed on posterior margin [SA85]; postorbital broad [SA85]; intertemporal absent [SA85]; postorbital fuses with intertemporal posteriorly [VS91]; orbits located high and closely spaced [VS91]; orbits dorsoventrally elongate and elevated [SA85]; jugal with slight contact or no contact with orbit [SA85]; lower jaw with 3 infradentaries & 3 right, 4 left submandibulars, large median gular [SA85]; 16-17 vertebrae [SA85] [2]; neural arches with smooth, perichondral surface [SA85]; neural arches not fused [C96]; intercentra with endochondral bone internally [SA85]; intercentra forming half-rings, pleurocentra not found [SA85]; scales overlap extensively (~50% as judged by unornamented surface) within scale rows, but only slight overlap between scale rows (i.e. anteroposteriorly) [SA85].
Notes:[1] or the lateral rostral. The septomaxilla probably derives from the lateral rostral, anterior tectal, or both. See, e.g., [C02] (anterior tectal). For simplicity, we use the latter name throughout. [SA85] apparently believe that the septomaxilla derives from the lateral rostral, so it is not clear if their nomenclature is standard. [2] Unclear whether this is the vertebral count for the reconstructed organism, the particular fossil, or both.
It really struck me that this is exactly what biologists have to deal with. We have creationist authors who present sound-byte critiques of transitional forms or what have you and creationist followers who come onto webpages like this and cite this material as authoritative and scholarly.
So, an average creationist cites AIG or ICR (whose scholarship on most issues is barely better than the creationist webpage offered here, half of everything they deal with being dismissed in a fairly similar manner), is directed to an informative source of information written and researched by qualified individuals (say TO or Palaeos), and a common response is "why is your page any better than mine?"
In other words, a creationist would have you believe that the level of scholarship concerning, say, Elpistostege as a potential transitional form, is equal on the sort of webpage mentioned first in this OP as something like Palaeos.
So yah, this comparison in my mind was a very good example of what biologists must think in reading half of the tripe that's posted as "proof" against evolution. It's very hard for people educated in this topic to understand how a person could read something like creationist webpage linked here and actually take it seriously. This can occasionally be a bad thing, as effective dialogue between the learned and laypeople is often strained to non-existent. Which is probably half the reason why America is in a situation where almost all of its life scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution, and nearly half of its laypopulation reject it.
Just some random thoughts, I guess.
Last edited by mikeynov; 30th May 2005 at 03:54 PM.
As an aside, the creationist webpage in question here defined "kind!"
Kind: A group of organisms descended from a group of common interbreed able ancestors. Note that only the ancestors have to be interbreed able.
It is impossible to completely reconcile a kind with the current classification system. One reason is because it is too easy for newly discovered varieties to be classified as a new genus, family or whatever. Creationists have fallen in to this trap before, by defining a kind as equivalent to species or genus. It seems that a kind is roughly equivalent to family but can some time be as narrow as genus or species. It may even include more than one family.
As a second aside, sadly enough, the little "blurb" that is somehow supposed to "disprove" Elpistostege as a transitional form between fish and amphibians is actually referenced by other creationist resources, including Creationwiki.
Amazing stuff. As soon as creationist authority X says something, it's cited by A - Z as authoritative. Creationism as an infectious meme seems fairly supported by such observations.
Here is a good tip for sources if you don't already know...
Google has a new scholar search engine that provides actual scientific papers in electronic form
Just type Google Scholar and the entire scientific world is at your fingertips..
The Permo-Triassic transition in Spitsbergen: [delta]13Corg chemostratigraphy, Fe and S geochemistry, facies, fauna and trace fossils
P. B. WIGNALL a1 , R. MORANTE a2 and R. NEWTON a1
a1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
a2 Division of Petroleum Resources, CSIRO Institute of Minerals, Energy and Construction, PO Box 136, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia
Abstract
New [delta]13Corg analyses of two boundary sections between the late Permian Kapp Starostin Formation and the early Triassic Vardebukta Formation of western Spitsbergen confirm field evidence that their contact is a conformable one. Thus, contrary to previous reports, some Spitsbergen sections contain a complete record of the environmental and faunal changes during the crisis interval of the end Permian mass extinction. No environmental deterioration is recorded in the late Permian until near the end of the terminal Changxingian Stage, whereupon the abundant siliceous sponge fauna of the Kapp Starostin Formation disappears along with the deep-burrowing fauna responsible for the Zoophycus trace fossil. A low diversity dysaerobic trace fossil assemblage is briefly developed before a transition to finely laminated, pyritic facies immediately beneath the Permo-Triassic boundary. Analysis of the S/C ratios from the laminated strata suggests that free H2S was present in the water column (euxinic conditions) even in relatively nearshore settings subject to storm sandstone deposition. The mass extinction crisis in Spitsbergen is therefore coincident with the extensive development of oxygen-poor conditions in the water column and compares closely, both in timing and nature, with the crisis seen in lower latitude Tethyan settings. However, the subsequent aftermath and recovery in the Boreal sections of Spitsbergen was more rapid than in Tethys. Thus, a shoreface sandstone body within the Dienerian Stage contains an appreciable diversity of fauna (by the standards of the early Triassic), including bryozoans, calcareous algae and deep infaunal bivalves, that suggests the marine ecosystem recovery began earliest in higher palaeolatitudes.
(Received May 6 1997)
(Accepted September 9 1997)
As a second aside, sadly enough, the little "blurb" that is somehow supposed to "disprove" Elpistostege as a transitional form between fish and amphibians is actually referenced by other creationist resources, including Creationwiki.
Amazing stuff. As soon as creationist authority X says something, it's cited by A - Z as authoritative. Creationism as an infectious meme seems fairly supported by such observations.
I tend to disagree, sometimes people make mistakes. Good scientists go back to the drawing board and correct thier previous errors and improve thier theory, right?
I spent a large portion of today poring over boring research papers. How does mass exinction hold any weight? Could a qualified geolgist please explain to the differents between pyritic and laminate forms found in rock?
Do these present a basic chemical change according to science 101?
Nice. It is a very important point that... well, to be simple about it, scholars > non-scholars.
I wish people would note the same about a lot of biblical critics compared to biblical scholars. (The same could be noted between the average church-goer and someone who does NT studies.) On the one hand you have painful simplifications [and often] sensationalization. On the other hand you have detailed and nuanced sections, written quite seriously (take N. T. Wright for example). ANYWAY...
__________________
Mostly gone after what happened with CFT. On occasionally to check up on people. Drop a line to my gmail.
Nice. It is a very important point that... well, to be simple about it, scholars > non-scholars.
I wish people would note the same about a lot of biblical critics compared to biblical scholars. (The same could be noted between the average church-goer and someone who does NT studies.) On the one hand you have painful simplifications [and often] sensationalization. On the other hand you have detailed and nuanced sections, written quite seriously (take N. T. Wright for example). ANYWAY...
That is a very reasonable request..I am pretty much a Bible scholar too.The scientific portion and opposing viewpoints only sparked my interest in the scientific world.The story of Noah's Ark depicted in Genesis can also be a symbol and a sign describing the details of when God desired/desires simple repentance and entered into a covenant with Mankind.I presume people are apprehensive about the postulation of Creator because most seem to focus on condemnation and judgement instead of seeking to pursue what is good and godly. Jesus is the answer to our personal fears and shortcomings.
1 Peter 3.20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.
And many try to twist things to fit thier own limited perspectives.This leads to unnatural and unneeded questions about moral implications regarding biblical issues.
Proverbs 11.20
Even a child is know by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.
I know I like mint chocolate ice cream, I also like people in general.
Is that also determined by 'evolution'? I hope I can benefit and show everyone that they have meaning and specfic purposes in thier lives. We are not stuck here on a planet void of meaning.
I tend to disagree, sometimes people make mistakes. Good scientists go back to the drawing board and correct thier previous errors and improve thier theory, right?
I spent a large portion of today poring over boring research papers. How does mass exinction hold any weight? Could a qualified geolgist please explain to the differents between pyritic and laminate forms found in rock?
Do these present a basic chemical change according to science 101?
Linear Mode
