Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process

Ah, RAZD.You have saved me the trouble of establishing a new thread. I have been planning to discuss Foraminfera for some time.Versatile little critters. Here's a few that are around these days: Notice how they differ markedly in relation to their environment. That's because they are ecophynotypic. That should have sounded a warning bell for Tony Arnold and Bill Parker but it obviously didn't. However, fortunately there are more professional scientists around:

quote:

---

The diversity and distribution of modern benthic foraminifera has been extensively studied in order to aid the paleoecological interpretation of their fossil record. Traditionally, foraminiferal species are identified based on morphological characters of their organic, agglutinated or calcareous tests. Recently, however, new molecular techniques based on analysis of DNA sequences have been introduced to study the genetic variation in foraminifera. Although the number of species for which DNA sequence data exist is still very limited, it appears that morphology-based studies largely underestimated foraminiferal diversity.(Pawlowski and Holzmann, 2007) Emphasis added.

---

Morphology-based studies, RAZD. Like microphotographic studies. Like that of Tony Arnold and Bill Parker. They underestimated diversity. They got it wrong. They thought they were looking at different critters, when they were the same critters wearing different coats. Ecophenotypes, RAZD. Not evolutionary successors.You come up with one example of an unbroken evolutionary sequence. One. Out of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of species that exist and have existed. One.And it turns out to be wrong.Doesn't that tell you something, RAZD?Edited by Kaichos Man, : imageEdited by Admin, : Reduce image width.Edited by Kaichos Man, : wrong graph

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

What better way to choose someone's path than by denying them a choice of paths?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Ah, RAZD.I bring up "ecophenotypes", a single species exhibiting a range of morphotypes. Then you bring up "morphospecies", which can be several species exhibiting the same morphotype- and accuse me of having it the wrong way around!The fact is, forams are extraordinarily plastic. They possess, as you have pointed out, "cryptic genetic variation". It may be worthwhile to establish exactly what that means:

quote:

---

What is cryptic genetic variation? Cryptic genetic
variation refers to unexpressed, bottled-up genetic
potential. It is not normally seen, but is expressed
under abnormal conditions such as in a new environment or
a different genetic background. In a sense, the
measurable component of normal variation is just the tip
of an iceberg of genetic possibilities that are hidden
below the visible surface.

​

Gibson and Reed 2008

---

Notice that this doesn't make them seperate species. It means a single species can take many forms. This results in ecophenotypes and morphospecies. It means that when you look at three morphotypes you could be looking at six species or one. And the fact is, it's impossible to tell:

quote:

---

Alternatively, due to the lack of paleoenvironmental and
biogeographic observations in the past, it cannot be
discounted that all morphotypes found in this
investigation simply represent ecovariants of one
species.

​

Knappertsbusch 2000

---

The cryptic genetic diversity of living foraminifera has been established through molecular studies. But the forams comprising the fossil record contain no DNA. That's why Arnold and Parker had to rely on microphotography.And given that -at any given time- they could be looking at the same species taking several forms, or a single form representing several species, their claims of establishing an unbroken evolutionary progression are laughable.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

quote:

---

Note (1) that this is 1978, and (2) that these forams involved ("Ammotium, Ammonia, and Elphidium") are three benthic genera, one of which Ammonia is specifically referred to in the article on benthic forams that showed cryptic genetic diversity instead of ecophenotypic variation.

​

New information displaces old mistakes.

---

You are suggesting then, RAZD, that ecophenotypic variation doesn't occur in foraminifera?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Wow. That's a pretty sweeping statement. Let's see if the latest literature by the top scientists supports it.

quote:

---

Uvigerina is a common genus of benthic foraminifera,
often used as a proxy for paleoclimate and
paleoenvironment reconstructions. Better understanding of
the phylogeny of Uvigerina would improve its proxy value
and would allow us to check whether its different
morphospecies are real species or ecophenotypes only. M. Schweizer, J. Pawlowski, I.A.P. Duijnsteea, T.J. Kouwenhovena and G.J. van der Zwaana, 2005

---

Some heavy names there, RAZD. And they obviously see ecophenotypes not only as a possibility but as a real problem in using this particular foram as a proxy.I think Michael Knappertsbusch articulates the central problem most handsomely:

quote:

---

A major difficulty in foraminiferal taxonomy is that clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients can produce morphological sequences that mimic evolutionary change. Furthermore, migration of similar forms from neighbouring areas can mask evolutionary or ecophenotypic signals in the sediments. Because of these difficulties, an evolutionary study must attempt to separate environmentally-caused morphological signals from those that occur due to non-environmental genetic changes. Molecular taxonomy is one way to do this as was demonstrated impressively by DARLING et al (1996), DEVARGAS et al (1997), DARLING et al(1997), STEWART et al (2001), DARLING et al (1999), DARLING et al (2000), KUCERA& DARLING(2002), and DARLING et al(2004).

​

Obviously, in extinct species this approach is not possible.

​

Knappertsbusch 2007

---

I understand why you have embarked on this Quixotic mission to destroy the concept of ecophenotypy, RAZD. You appreciate that it renders the foraminiferal fossil record nonsensical as "an unbroken evolutionary progression".But how on earth are you going to counter all of that scientific literature? Try googling "ecophenotypic foraminifera", and you'll see what you're up against.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Yes I do. No I don't.RAZD, let's look at some of the terms used frequently in the study of foraminifera:"Ecophenotypic". "Morphospecies". "Plasticity" "Cryptic genetic diversity". "Cryptic genetic variation". "Intra-species variation". "Clinal morphology".Do you notice anything about these terms, RAZD? They all (more or less) mean the same thing. They certainly lead to the same conclusion:The extreme genetic flexibility of foraminifera makes morphology a very poor indicator of species. Regarding Arnold and Palmer's evolutionary progression as real science is like regarding Hans Christian Anderson's work as a factual history of Denmark.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

You miss the point, RAZD. I am not putting forward an unbroken evolutionary progression. The onus is not on me to show it is invalid. It is on Parker and Arnold to prove that it is valid.And they can't.Let's take another look at Dr Michael Knappertsbusch's paper:

quote:

---

A major difficulty in foraminiferal taxonomy is that clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients can produce morphological sequences that mimic evolutionary change.

---

I assume you don't have a problem with the good doctor. A little research will show you that a) he is a globally-recognised authority on Foraminifera, and b) he is an evolutionist. Now then what is he saying?1) There is a "major difficulty" with foraminiferal taxonomy.2) It is caused by "clinal morphological changes". Changes possible under the existing gene pool. No speciation required.3) This is a problem because these changes can "Mimic evolutionary change".Now the doctor sees a solution to the problem:

quote:

---

an evolutionary study must attempt to separate environmentally-caused morphological signals from those that occur due to non-environmental genetic changes. Molecular taxonomy is one way to do this

---

But unfortunately, it's of no use to Parker and Arnold:

quote:

---

Obviously, in extinct species this approach is not possible.

---

Just to reiterate, RAZD. Here we have an unimpeachable source stating (very recently) that there is a "major difficulty" with foraminiferal taxonomy that cannot be solved with regard to extinct species.The onus is on Parker and Arnold to solve this difficulty, though I suspect they may not bother. As more becomes known about intraspecific variability, the "extraordinary plasticity" in foraminifera they might choose to pursue other lines of research, and hope that people forget about a premature and increasingly embarrassing claim of an unbroken evolutionary progression.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

As I have stated elsewhere, the onus is not on me to provide evidence. I am not claiming to have discovered an unbroken evolutionary progression.Dr Knapperstbusch has pointed out a serious difficulty in foraminiferal taxonomy relating to clinal morphology. Recent molecular reseach by other eminent scientists illustrates the same difficulty:

quote:

---

As U. peregrina is more closely related to R. phlegeri and T. earlandi than to the other two Uvigerina, the taxonomic status of these species needs to be revised.

---

and this:

quote:

---

This indicates a high morphological plasticity of Uvigerina species, which should be taken into consideration when using this genus as a proxy in paleoecological reconstructions.

​

M. Schweizer, J. Pawlowski, I.A.P. Duijnsteea, T.J. Kouwenhovena and G.J. van der Zwaana, 2005

---

Emphasis added in both quotes.The onus is on Parker and Arnold to show that the "clinal morphology" or "morphological plasticity" creating such difficulties in the classification of living foraminifera is not present within their supposed evolutionary progression.And this, as Knappertsbusch has pointed out, is not possible with extinct species.Edited by Kaichos Man, : emphasis

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

And on that clearly partisan note, I shall quit the forum. Bye everyone, it's been nice interacting with you.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

quote:

---

This indicates a high morphological plasticity of Uvigerina species, which should be taken into consideration when using this genus as a proxy in paleoecological reconstructions.
M. Schweizer, J. Pawlowski, I.A.P. Duijnsteea, T.J. Kouwenhovena and G.J. van der Zwaana, 2005

---

The above is from my penultimate post. You will see that it is clearly referenced, in line with forum guideline 7: Nowhere that I can see in the guidelines is an actual link to the source required. However, if this has become a new requirement, I am happy to abide by it.Please understand that creationists are very much in the minority on this forum. We can be expected to be overly sensitive to any suggestion of bias or censorship from the moderators, all of whom (as far as I can see) are evolutionists.

quote:

---

When I reply to you, the first ten minutes are usually spent poking around the web trying to find where your quotes came from

---

Percy, if it takes you ten minutes to google M. Schweizer, J. Pawlowski, I.A.P. Duijnsteea, T.J. Kouwenhovena and G.J. van der Zwaana, 2005and find the appropriate text, then I am tempted to believe that you are a quadraplegic who operates his computer by way of an instrument held between his teeth (if this is in fact true I apologise profusely, blushing and stammering).Now, suitably goaded by the oh-so-predictable chorus of "he's running away because he's losing", I shall resume battle.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

And who might you be? I've posted 189 times, and the only one you replied to was the one where you thought I wasn't coming back.You are obviously the type of guy who hitches his pants up and struts around talking tough after the other guy has left.How sad.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

All of the following relates to this source:
http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2007_A04/index.html You see a significant difference between the terms "ecophenotypic variation" and "clinal morphology"? That's not changing horses, RAZD. It might be changing saddle-blankets. Yes- and it is still limited. But most importantly, RAZD, this was the preceding paragraph. Knappertsbusch then goes on to say:

quote:

---

A major difficulty in foraminiferal taxonomy is that clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients can produce morphological sequences that mimic evolutionary change.

---

So he raises the "major difficulty" after referring to the studies that, presumably, include Arnold and Parker. Their study isn't the solution, RAZD. It's the problem.And as you point out Knappertsbusch suggests three solutions to the major difficulty:1. Molecular research (not possible with extinct species),2. Stable isotope chemistry (no suggestion it was used by Arnold and Parker, and only establishes preference in the depth habitat- useless for species identification, and3.The careful monitoring of morphological changes through time in a selected microfossil lineage (which sounds a lot like what Arnold and Parker did) in discrete geographic areas where the paleoceanographic history is known a priori (which sounds a lot like what they didn't do). They used the whole geological column. Indeed they had to, in order to make their far-fetched claim.So having referenced (indirectly) the work of Parker and Arnold, Dr Knappertsbush then raised a "major difficulty" in foraminiferal taxonomy and goes on to list three possible solutions- none of which applies to the work of Parker and Arnold. Your impression? Honestly, RAZD, has it come down to that? We've got Percy gauging veracity by the number of mentions on Google Scholar, and you putting forward your impressions.Move over, hypothesis. Here comes the hunch.Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.Edited by Kaichos Man, : to put the bloody link in!

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Oh yes. Yes, yes and a thousand times yes. Which means that, if you are identifying species by morphology alone (a la Parker, Arnold and their microphotography) you've got Buckley's chance of establishing a concrete, inarguable, specific evolutionary progression. At any given moment you may be looking at a range of morphologies that may all be the same species. They may not be, of course. The point is you can never know. No it isn't. It is: "Morphological sequences" being precisely what was presented by Parker and Arnold. They can mimic evolutionary change, RAZD. Not a good idea, therefore, to put them forward as "unbroken evolutionary sequences".Let's take a look at the way the University of South Florida views the problem:

quote:

---

One striving for an accurate suprageneric classification must supplement it with numerous updates, revisions, additions, and emendations, including Loeblich and Tappan's 1992 Present status of foraminiferal classification, and Sen Gupta's 1999 Systematics of Modern Foraminifera. Modern genetic techniques and consequent taxonomic conceptions mean these groupings will shift all the more often. Accurate species-level classification requires a vast and growing, not to mention often conflicting, library of references.

​

The proposed solution to this taxonomic quagmire is an online database of foraminiferal taxonomy.

​

McCloskey 2005

---

reference: http://gsa.confex.com/...5AM/finalprogram/abstract_97460.htm"Taxonomic quagmire", RAZD. That term does not allow for minor technical difficulties. McCloskey is obviously referring to the many instances where molecular research has demanded a revision of the classification of extant species of foraminifera. I can post references if you like, though I am sure you have encountered them in your research, as I have.This is current research into living species. A quagmire!We don't know what we're looking at with live foraminifera, RAZD. How on earth can we interpret anything from fossilized remains?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Welcome, Foxdog. I won't hear a word said against Dickie Dawkins, Foxdog. This man has provided Creationists with more ammunition than the rest of the evolutionary fraternity combined.Oh, and a word to the wise. If you have come to this forum hoping to win an argument, forget it. I have never seen anyone, Creationist or evolutionist, concede defeat. Not once. When the dust settles on any given subject, both sides believe they have won. Both sides are gobsmacked that the other side can't see how badly they have lost.I tell you this because to expect victory -far less than to claim it- is to invite disillusionment.As RAZD would say, enjoy!Edited by Kaichos Man, : crap grammar

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

quote:

---

End result: over 90% validated confidence in classification down to the level of genera

---

90%. That's not bad.

quote:

---

and slightly less confidence in classification down to species

---

90% of 90%. 81%. Hmm. Getting a bit dodgey.

quote:

---

with a bit more uncertainty down to the level of subspecies variants.

---

90% of 81%. 73%. Oh dear. And this is the "unbroken evolutionary progression"? More than a quarter of it may be wrong?Still. Good enough for what passes as science in evolution.(Aside) - Hey, Foxdog. Get my drift?

quote:

---

cavediver and Rahvin are two that will tell you that they have changed as a result of this forum convincing them that creationism was wrong

---

Two people who have obviously never experienced a rhema. Christianity without the Holy Spirit? There's no such thing.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin