Another transitional fossil found

[RufusAtticus]

Nick,

I suggest that you read the following: Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.

We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Nick,

I suggest that you read the following: Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

Again? Why? I have it pretty much memorized by now.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley


Again? Why? I have it pretty much memorized by now.

Then why do you make such obvious mistakes as equating puncuated equilibrium with hopeful monster?

 

[Cyclo Rider]

Originally posted by Sauron
Wanna explain the SEVERAL HUNDRED transitional fossils listed here?

You mean transitional myths. They don't require an explanation since they are the product of irrational fantasies at worst and ridiculous assumptions at best.

If the seal was an extinct creature, evolutionists would be claiming the seal is a transitional fossil between land mammals and sea mammals.

If the frog was an extinct creature, evolutionists would be claiming the frog is a transitional fossil between the first amphibians and therapod dinosaurs. "Notice the strong hind legs in proportion to the arms... and the larger mouth cavity."

If the chicken was an extinct creature, evolutionists would be claiming the chicken is a transitional fossil between land-based birds and birds of flight.

The list goes on and on... macro-evolution is a myth.

Let me make it easy on you. Pick any 10 listed there, and demonstrate why they are not transitional.

Let me make it easy on you--because they were created that way.

Or how about the 29 DIFFERENT and INDEPENDENT evidences for macroevolution here?

Already saw the page and the evidences don't exist, except in word myths and fantasies of which the aforementioned are a hilarious example. That's probably why they don't show illustrations of the animals. Their frauds would be more easily exposed.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


Then why do you make such obvious mistakes as equating puncuated equilibrium with hopeful monster?

Equate? I think my comparison was pretty clear. Perhaps it's a reading comprehension issue on your part.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley

Equate? I think my comparison was pretty clear. Perhaps it's a reading comprehension issue on your part.

I find it funny how instead of admitting your mistake you attack me. Here is what you said.

Punk eek is "pucutated equilibrium," which is really just a more palatable version of the hopeful monster. It's basically the same idea, only toned down and restated so that it won't sound as outrageous.

You are clearly equating the two. Perhaps you should be more careful with your writing if that is not what you intended and accept correction more graciously.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

You mean transitional myths. They don't require an explanation since they are the product of irrational fantasies at worst and ridiculous assumptions at best.

Your emotional assertion doesn't make any attempt to actually address the evidence. Throwing around words like "irrational" and "ridiculous" might make you feel better, but they do nothing to disprove the reality of transitional fossils. If you want to try, pick some fossils and get to work.

If the seal was an extinct creature, evolutionists would be claiming the seal is a transitional fossil between land mammals and sea mammals.

Which seal? There is no such thing as “the seal.” Seals are a living transitional from fully terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic mammals. However, they would not ever be considered members of the lineage that leads up to the cetaceans, since they are clearly members of Carnivora. Browse the Tree of Life for more information.

If the frog was an extinct creature, evolutionists would be claiming the frog is a transitional fossil between the first amphibians and therapod dinosaurs. "Notice the strong hind legs in proportion to the arms... and the larger mouth cavity."

Which frog? Again, there is no such thing as “the frog.” There are plenty of extinct amphibians which are not considered transitional to amniotes. Tree of Life for more info.

If the chicken was an extinct creature, evolutionists would be claiming the chicken is a transitional fossil between land-based birds and birds of flight.

That’s rather silly since it wouldn’t fit with the fossil record.

The list goes on and on... macro-evolution is a myth.

And what qualifications do you have in biology to make such a pronouncement. If you really want to see my macroevolution is not a myth, read the textbook, Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma. It’s the standard for undergraduate courses on Evolution.

Let me make it easy on you--because they were created that way.

Not much of an explanation since it is unfalsifiable and depends on a completely unsupportable and unaddressable assumption that there exists a Creator in an anthropomorphic sense. Now, would you care to actually attempt to explain how ten fossils don’t provided evidence for the evolution from A to B as is claimed by science.

Already saw the page and the evidences don't exist, except in word myths and fantasies of which the aforementioned are a hilarious example. That's probably why they don't show illustrations of the animals. Their frauds would be more easily exposed.

Ahh, strawmen, where would Cyclo Rider’s argument be with out you?

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
You mean transitional myths. They don't require an explanation since they are the product of irrational fantasies at worst and ridiculous assumptions at best.

Yawn.  Prove it.  The evidence is carefully documented.  Oh, wait - Let me check my predictions:

1.  You don't know enough of the science to be able to even *read* the articles for comprehension;

2.  You're hopelessly unable to respond to either of my challenges; so

3.  Instead of admitting that, you'll wave your hands, respond with a bumper-sticker cliche, and either dodge or exit the debate.


I *did* predict that you'd handwave it all away.  It's so nice to be right. 

The list goes on and on... macro-evolution is a myth.

Well, the list does go on and on - but it's the list of transitional fossils that you refuse to address.

Let me make it easy on you--because they were created that way.

 

Except you have no proof for creation.  And you haven't been able to disprove any of the hundreds of transitional fossils, nor any of the 29 evidences for macro-evolution.

Already saw the page and the evidences don't exist, except in word myths and fantasies of which the aforementioned are a hilarious example.

More handwaving.  If you think the evidences "don't exist", then you should be able to quickly and easily disprove them.  Instead of doing that, however, you handwave, bluster, throw dirt in the air, etc. anything you can possibly do to avoid addressing the specifics.

Yessir folks, it's another "coward for creationism" - I wish I could say I was surprised. 

That's probably why they don't show illustrations of the animals.

Wrong.  It's because of copyright law.  Of course, you could get off your duff and actually look up the referenced illustrations in the texts - they are mentioned in the footnotes, you know.  But of course, that would actually entail you doing some *work*, and as we've all seen, that ain't gonna happen.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/email.html

. "Why isn't the FAQ illustrated?"

<DD>The primary reasons are practical: there aren't any un-copyrighted illustrations available, and I don't own a scanner (or even a modem, or even [gasp] a web surfer). Furthermore, creating good fossil illustrations would be extremely difficult, for the following reasons. Many of the fossil illustrations seen in textbooks are actually very inaccurate (for instance, Hyracotherium is usually drawn to look like a little horse; but in fact, it did not look at all like a horse). Good fossil illustrations can only be done by a small subset of scientific illustrators who are trained in anatomy and paleontology. Hiring one of these people would cost actual money. The illustrator would then have to spend several years flying to 50 or so museums to see the original fossils and talking to the expert paleontologists who have studied each fossil. Furthermore, the species-to-species transitions would be tricky to illustrate, since they involve whole populations of hundreds of fossils simultaneously showing gradual shifts in various traits. It would be an exciting project -- but doing it right would take years and would require substantial funding for salaries, travel, and equipment.

<DD>&nbsp;Moving along...

Their frauds would be more easily exposed.

If they're so easily exposed, then why are you having such a hard time doing so?&nbsp; For something that you claim is *so* easy, you are squealing and whining like a stuck pig.&nbsp;

So when you gonna "expose these frauds", CR?&nbsp; Hmmm?&nbsp; We're all waiting with baited breath, you know. :razz:</DD>

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

You are clearly equating the two. Perhaps you should be more careful with your writing if that is not what you intended and accept correction more graciously.

Perhaps you should be more careful with your reading and accept the fact that you're wrong -- ever -- gracefully or not. If it's "basically same idea, toned down, restated" then it's not equal. How is it toned down and restated? I explained in the rest of my post.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Please direct me to the chapter and verse where it explains why men have nipples.

Wow - this was the most clever and brilliant retort I've ever seen. It was so brilliant you finally converted me back into an atheist.

It's one thing for God to include clues about unpleasant things in life like a virus when God says he cursed creation as a result of sin. But I must admit that when God leaves out details about why men have nipples, that's inexcusable.

As anyone can plainly see, nipples on men are central to the issues of God's character and His plan of redemption for sin. To leave out that detail in His Word would be tantamount to to deliberately confusing his creation about one of the most important details of His creation -- nay, THE most important detail about His creation! So I'm convinced. Evolution must be true, and the Bible false. Thanks for finally opening my eyes to this glorious truth that, thanks to nipples on men, science is god and God does not exist. In honor of this revelation, I'm going to have about 2/3 of my brain removed so that I can continue thinking like you do.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

You told HtH that the Bible had all the answers. Are you now retracting that statement?

 

[Mephibosheth]

What is more disturbing, Sauron, is the fact that "walking limbs" developed before their use on land or the neccessity to use them on land. As evidence, I present Acanthostega, an aquatic tetrapod.

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Acanthostega&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates

Now, why would a species develop "walking limbs" before they were necessary? Could the species "know" that someday its ancestors would need to walk on land?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Now, why would a species develop "walking limbs" before they were necessary?

I don't know why.. perhaps useful for scuttling across the bottom. As you astutely point out though, such limbs did develop before the tetrapods became terrestrial. Without them, it is doubtful that vertebrates would have come onto land.

Could the species "know" that someday its ancestors would need to walk on land?

No, I don't think that it is possible or necessary to posit a teleological explanation for the aquatic development of limbs. After all, many aquatic critters of Arthropoda have such, and it enhances their survival to have them.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
You told HtH that the Bible had all the answers. Are you now retracting that statement?

You told me that you could prove abiogenesis is true and show step by step how it happened. Are you now retracting that statement?

See? I can put words in YOUR mouth, too.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
You told me that you could prove abiogenesis is true and show step by step how it happened. Are you now retracting that statement?

See? I can put words in YOUR mouth, too.

There you go again, Nick. For your reference, here is the original exchange:

HtH wrote:
And the point is not that we know God. Of course we don’t – but we can look at something and say “that’s an awfully strange way of doing something,”

To which npetreley replied:
Maybe. But if you'd pick up your Bible and read it, you'd find the answer there.

At which point I asked:
Please direct me to the chapter and verse where it explains why men have nipples.

At which point you dodged the challenge and changed the subject.

I don't need to put words in your mouth to make you look foolish, Nick. You do it to yourself.

 

[Mephibosheth]

Tetrapods started a distinctly different limb system. Well-defined joints and digits (chiridium) were never seen before that time.

The problem with Acanthostega is that it was unable to support itself on its limbs, much less attempt to be ambulatory on them.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley


Perhaps you should be more careful with your reading and accept the fact that you're wrong -- ever -- gracefully or not. If it's "basically same idea, toned down, restated" then it's not equal. How is it toned down and restated? I explained in the rest of my post.

I said "equating" now "equaling." (And you think I have the comprehension problem.) You said that they are "basically same idea." Although you might not be saying that they are exactly the same, you are clearly equating the two. And that comparision is extremely wrong as Gould explains in his work.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Mephibosheth
Tetrapods started a distinctly different limb system. Well-defined joints and digits (chiridium) were never seen before that time.

The problem with Acanthostega is that it was unable to support itself on its limbs, much less attempt to be ambulatory on them.

Yes, but my point was that having limbs underwater, can be useful. Another example of useful aquatic "limbs", that are not weightbearing, are the tentacles of the cephalopods. I'm sure the list goes on and on. The limbs of Acanthostega may have even been a mere enhancement that was advantageous for their particular swimming habits.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Mephibosheth
The problem with Acanthostega is that it was unable to support itself on its limbs, much less attempt to be ambulatory on them.

That is of course assuming that Acanthostega lived on land.

From your own link:

"Acanthostega is interpreted as a primarily if not entirely aquatic animal, based on the form of the limb joints and digits, the extensive tail fin, notochordal vertebrae, lack of zygapophyses, short ribs with poorly differentiated sacral rib, postbranchial lamina, well-ossified hyobranchial apparatus, fish-like dentition retaining large vomerine fangs, lateral line organs embedded in bone, small naris, large stapes, and possibly functional spiracle. It also retains a number of primitive features independent of its aquatic life, such as the notochordal braincase, form of the fenestra vestibulae, persistent embryonic braincase fissures, fish-like occiput, anocleithrum, form of the scapulocoracoid-cleithral complex, relative lengths of radius and ulna, retention of dermal fin rays and supraneural spines. The large number of digits fits the hypothesis that early in limb evolution, digit number was not fixed. All of these characters suggest that not only was Acanthostega aquatic, but that it was primitively so, and not derived from a more terrestrial forebear. Its structure supports the idea that limbs with digits evolved for use in water, only later to be used on land, rather than the more conventional view that it was among sarcopterygian fishes that excursions over land first began (Clack 1997, Clack and Coates 1995, Coates and Clack 1995)."

Your assumption is that limbs have no use in water, which is rather dubious since many bottom dwelling fish have special fins that allow them to "walk." The limbs on Acanthostega offered similar advantages. For example, it could probe the sediment for food or move in shallow waters or onto the banks to avoid preditors or catch prey. In fact, it would be a rather dubious claim of science that limbs evolved after our ancestors began living out of water.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

I don't need to put words in your mouth to make you look foolish, Nick. You do it to yourself.

I'm perfectly happy to look foolish. But you're not looking foolish, you're looking like a liar and manipulator. Because you know perfectly well how this volley STARTED. It started with HtH's comment:

Also, if God made all the complex stuff, why did he bother to make all the protozoans as well? And why on earth did he create bacteria and viruses?

To which I replied...

Their knowledge of the God (in whom many of them do not even believe!) is so thorough and absolute that they can be certain beyond any doubt that this God would not create the virus. Indeed, they know this God so well that there's no point in reading the Bible to see if there are any clues to this riddle there.

Then some bozo tossed nipples into the conversation.